Department of Education

INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

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

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................F-6

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers ........................................................................... F-15

Summary of Changes ........................................................................................................... F-16

Authorizing Legislation.......................................................................................................... F-20

Appropriations History........................................................................................................... F-23

Significant Items in FY 2016 Appropriations Reports............................................................. F-24

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................ F-25

Activities:

Education innovation and research................................................................................... F-30

Teacher and school leader incentive grants...................................................................... F-40

American history and civics academies ............................................................................ F-47

Supporting effective educator development ...................................................................... F-49

School leader recruitment and support ............................................................................. F-54

STEM master teacher corps ............................................................................................. F-62

Teach to lead.................................................................................................................... F-65

Charter schools grants...................................................................................................... F-69

Magnet schools assistance............................................................................................... F-80

Stronger together grants................................................................................................... F-86

Next generation high schools............................................................................................ F-90

Computer science for all development grants ................................................................... F-95

Ready to learn programming ............................................................................................ F-99

Advanced placement ...................................................................................................... F-106

Preschool development grants ....................................................................................... F-111

Arts in education............................................................................................................. F-116

Non-cognitive skills initiative ........................................................................................... F-122

Javits gifted and talented education................................................................................ F-124

Preschool for all.............................................................................................................. F-127

RESPECT: Best job in the world.................................................................................... F-131

Computer science for all................................................................................................. F-137
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Appropriations Language

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

D] subparts 1 and 4 of part B and section 2232 of title II, and parts [B, C,] C and D and subparts 

1 and 4 of part F of title [V] IV of the ESEA, [and section 14007 of division A of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended, $1,181,226,000:] and for carrying out 

additional activities as specified below, $1,331,556,000:1 Provided, That $391,815,000 shall be 

for subparts 1 and 4 of part B and section 2232 of title II and shall be made available without 

regard to sections 2201 and 2241:2 Provided further, That $529,741,000 shall be for parts C and 

D 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: Provided further, That section 4303(d)(3) 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 less than $26,000,000 to carry out section 4304, of 

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

$100,000,000 to carry out section 4305(b), and not less than $16,000,000 to carry out the 

activities in section 4305(a)(3) and to make up to 5 competitive grants to charter schools to 

develop and validate collaborative activities with local educational agencies to improve student 

outcomes:4 Provided, That [up to $120,000,000] notwithstanding section 4601(b), $180,000,000

shall be available through December 31, [20165 for section 14007 of division A of Public Law 

111–5, and up to 5 percent of such funds may be used for technical assistance and the 

evaluation of activities carried out under such section:6 Provided further, That the education 

facilities clearinghouse established through a competitive process in fiscal year 2013 may 

collect and disseminate information on effective educational practices and the latest research on 

the planning, design, financing, construction, improvement, operation, and maintenance of safe, 

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

grade 12, and higher education:7 Provided further, That $230,000,000 of the funds for subpart 1 

F-1
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

activities conducted and systems developed under the grant once the grant period has expired:8

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

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

activities:9 Provided further, That $250,000,000 of the funds for part D of title V of the ESEA 

shall be available through December 31, 2016 for carrying out, in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of part D of title V of the ESEA, a preschool development grants 

program: Provided further, That the Secretary, jointly with the Secretary of HHS, shall make 

competitive awards to States for activities that build the capacity within the State to develop, 

enhance, or expand high-quality preschool programs, including comprehensive services and 

F-2
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

family engagement, for preschool-aged children from families at or below 200 percent of the 

Federal poverty line: Provided further, That each State may subgrant a portion of such grant 

funds to local educational agencies and other early learning providers (including, but not limited 

to, Head Start programs and licensed child care providers), or consortia thereof, for the 

implementation of high-quality preschool programs for children from families at or below 200 

percent of the Federal poverty line: Provided further, That subgrantees that are local 

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

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

educational agencies, in order to carry out the requirements of the subgrant:10 Provided further, 

That up to 3 percent of such funds for preschool development grants shall be available for 

technical assistance, evaluation, and other national activities related to such grants:11 Provided 

further, That $10,000,000 of funds available under part D of title V of the ESEA shall be for the 

Full-Service Community Schools program:12 Provided further, That of the funds available for part 

B of title V of the ESEA, the Secretary shall use up to $10,000,000 to carry out activities under 

section 5205(b) and shall use not less than $16,000,000 for subpart 2: Provided further, That of 

the funds available for subpart 1 of part B of title V of the ESEA, and notwithstanding section 

5205(a), the Secretary shall reserve up to $100,000,000 to make multiple awards to non-profit 

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

replication and expansion of successful charter school models and shall reserve not less than 

$11,000,000 to carry out the activities described in section 5205(a), including improving quality 

and oversight of charter schools and providing technical assistance and grants to authorized 

public chartering agencies in order to increase the number of high-performing charter schools: 

Provided further, That funds available for part B of title V of the ESEA may be used for grants 

that support preschool education in charter schools:13 Provided further, That each application 

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

F-3
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

authorized public chartering agencies through such activities as providing technical assistance 

or establishing a professional development program, which may include evaluation, planning, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

public chartering agency; and demonstrate improved student academic achievement; and 

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

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

important factors when determining to renew or revoke a school's charter]

14 2017 for subpart 1 

of part F of title IV: Provided further, That of the amounts available for section 4611 of the 

ESEA, the Secretary may reserve up to $30,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects 

Agency-Education (ARPA-ED), which shall be established within the Department of Education, 

with a Director appointed by the Secretary, to identify and promote advances in fundamental 

and applied sciences and engineering that could be translated into new learning technologies, 

to develop, test, and evaluate novel learning technologies and related processes, and to 

accelerate transformational technological advances: Provided further, That such funds shall 

remain available until expended and may be used to award grants, contracts, cooperative 

agreements, and cash prizes, and to enter into other transactions (in accordance with such 

regulations as the Secretary may establish regarding such other transactions); Provided further, 

That the Secretary may appoint up to 20 scientific, engineering, professional, and other missionF-4
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

related personnel to positions in ARPA-ED, for up to four years, without regard to the provisions 

of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service; Provided 

further, That the personnel appointed under the preceding proviso shall be paid at rates of 

compensation determined by the Secretary:5 Provided further, That $120,000,000, to remain 

until expended, shall be for competitive grants to local educational agencies to develop and 

implement comprehensive strategies to improve socioeconomic integration in early childhood 

education programs and elementary and secondary schools, of which up to $2,500,000 may be 

used for national activities including technical assistance, evaluation, and dissemination:15

Provided further, That $100,000,000 shall be for competitive grants to local educational 

agencies, in partnership with institutions of higher education and other public and private 

entities, to develop and implement strategies to provide high-quality instruction and other

learning opportunities in computer science to students in pre-kindergarten through grade 12, 

including students in underserved communities or from groups historically underrepresented in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields: Provided further, That $2,500,000 of 

the funds provided in the previous proviso shall be for national activities including technical 

assistance, evaluation, and dissemination:16 Provided further, That $10,000,000 shall be for 

grants to non-profit organizations to support teacher-led projects designed to improve 

educational outcomes for high-need students.17 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 

2016.)

NOTE

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

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriation language.

F-5
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 For carrying out activities authorized by 

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

C and D] subparts 1 and 4 of part B and 

section 2232 of title II, and parts [B, C,] C

and D and subparts 1 and 4 of part F of title 

[V] IV of the ESEA, [and section 14007 of 

division A of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended, 

$1,181,226,000:] and for carrying out 

additional activities as specified below, 

$1,331,556,000:

This language appropriates funds for the 

Innovation and Improvement account. For 

fiscal year 2016, this includes the following 

programs: Advanced Placement, School 

Leadership, Ready-to-Learn Television, 

Charter Schools Grants, Magnet Schools 

Assistance, Teacher Incentive Fund, NonCognitive Skills, Full Service Community 

Schools, Innovative Approaches to Literacy, 

American History and Civics Academies, 

Javits Gifted and Talented, Arts in Education, 

and Investing in Innovation. For fiscal year 

2017, this includes the following programs: 

Teacher and School Leader Incentive 

Grants, American History and Civics 

Academies, Supporting Effective Educator 

Development, School Leader Recruitment 

and Support, STEM Master Teacher Corps, 

Charter Schools Grants, Magnet Schools 

Assistance, Education Innovation and 

Research, Arts in Education, Ready-to-Learn 

Programming, and Javits Gifted and Talented 

Education. Additionally, for fiscal year 2017, 

the language provides funding for the 

following proposed programs: Teach to 

Lead, Stronger Together Grants, and 

Computer Science for All Development 

Grants.

2Provided, That $391,815,000 shall be for 

subparts 1 and 4 of part B and section 2232 

of title II and shall be made available without 

regard to sections 2201 and 2241:

This language provides funds for Teacher 

and School Leader Incentive Grants, 

American History and Civics Academies, 

Supporting Effective Educator Development, 

School Leader Recruitment and Support, and 

STEM Master Teacher Corps without regard 

to the sections of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that 

specify the distribution of funds appropriated 

under Part B of Title II. 

F-6
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

Language Provision Explanation

3Provided further, That $529,741,000 shall 

be for parts C and D 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: Provided further, That 

section 4303(d)(3) shall not apply to the 

funds available for part C of title IV: 

This language provides funds for Charter 

Schools Grants, Magnet Schools Assistance, 

Education Innovation and Research, Arts in 

Education, Ready-to-Learn Programming, 

and Javits Gifted and Talented Education 

without regard to the sections of the ESEA 

that specify the distribution of funds 

appropriated under Parts C, D, and F of Title 

IV and the number and size of awards to 

State entities under Charter Schools Grants.

4Provided further, That of the funds available 

for part C of title IV, the Secretary shall use 

not less than $26,000,000 to carry out 

section 4304, of which not more than 

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

section 4304(k), not more than $100,000,000 

to carry out section 4305(b), and not less

than $16,000,000 to carry out the activities in 

section 4305(a)(3) and to make up to 5 

competitive grants to charter schools to 

develop and validate collaborative activities 

with local educational agencies to improve 

student outcomes:

This language establishes, from the Charter 

Schools Grants appropriation, a minimum 

amount for facilities financing assistance, a 

maximum amount for grants for the 

replication and expansion of high-quality 

charter schools, and a minimum amount for 

national activities including grants for charter 

schools to collaborate with traditional school 

districts. 

F-7
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

Language Provision Explanation

5Provided, That [up to $120,000,000] 

notwithstanding section 4601(b), 

$180,000,000 shall be available through 

December 31, [2016...] 2017 for subpart 1 of 

part F of title IV: Provided further, That of the 

amounts available for section 4611 of the 

ESEA, the Secretary may reserve up to 

$30,000,000 for the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency-Education (ARPA-ED), 

which shall be established within the 

Department of Education, with a Director 

appointed by the Secretary, to identify and 

promote advances in fundamental and 

applied sciences and engineering that could 

be translated into new learning technologies, 

to develop, test, and evaluate novel learning 

technologies and related processes, and to 

accelerate transformational technological 

advances: Provided further, That such funds 

shall remain available until expended and 

may be used to award grants, contracts, 

cooperative agreements, and cash prizes, 

and to enter into other transactions (in 

accordance with such regulations as the 

Secretary may establish regarding such other 

transactions); Provided further, That the 

Secretary may appoint up to 20 scientific, 

engineering, professional, and other missionrelated personnel to positions in ARPA-ED, 

for up to four years, without regard to the 

provisions of title 5, United States Code, 

governing appointments in the competitive

service; Provided further, That the personnel 

appointed under the preceding proviso shall 

be paid at rates of compensation determined 

by the Secretary:

This language provides a specific funding 

amount for Education Innovation and 

Research and also extends the period of 

Federal availability 3 months beyond the year

of appropriation. The language allows the 

Secretary to reserve a portion of the funds 

appropriated for a new organization within 

the Department, ARPA-ED, which would

identify and promote advances in 

fundamental and applied sciences and 

engineering that could accelerate 

transformational education advancements.

F-8
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

Language Provision Explanation

6 [...for section 14007 of division A of Public 

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

may be used for technical assistance and the 

evaluation of activities carried out under such 

section:]

This language earmarked funds for the 

Investing in Innovation program, gives the 

Department an additional 3 months beyond 

the end of the fiscal year to obligate the

funds, and allows the Department to use a 

portion of the funding for technical assistance 

and evaluation.

7 [...Provided further, That the education 

facilities clearinghouse established through a 

competitive process in fiscal year 2013 may 

collect and disseminate information on 

effective educational practices and the latest 

research on the planning, design, financing, 

construction, improvement, operation, and 

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

programs, kindergarten through grade 12, 

and higher education:]

This language allows funds awarded to the 

current Educational Facilities Clearinghouse 

grantee to be used to collect and disseminate 

information on research and effective 

practices regarding facilities for early learning 

programs and higher education, in addition to 

those activities for kindergarten through 

grade 12.

F-9
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

Language Provision Explanation

8 [...Provided further, That $230,000,000 of 

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

the ESEA shall be for competitive grants to 

local educational agencies, including charter 

schools that are local educational agencies, 

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

educational agency, a State, or both; and 

(2) at least one nonprofit organization to 

develop and implement performance-based 

compensation systems for teachers, 

principals, and other personnel in high-need 

schools: Provided further, That such 

performance-based compensation systems 

must consider gains in student academic 

achievement as well as classroom 

evaluations conducted multiple times during 

each school year among other factors and 

provide educators with incentives to take on 

additional responsibilities and leadership 

roles: Provided further, That recipients of 

such grants shall demonstrate that such 

performance-based compensation systems 

are developed with the input of teachers and 

school leaders in the schools and local 

educational agencies to be served by the 

grant: Provided further, That recipients of 

such grants may use such funds to develop 

or improve systems and tools (which may be 

developed and used for the entire local 

educational agency or only for schools 

served under the grant) that would enhance 

the quality and success of the compensation 

system, such as high-quality teacher 

evaluations and tools to measure growth in 

student achievement: Provided further, That 

applications for such grants shall include a 

plan to sustain financially the activities 

conducted and systems developed under the 

grant once the grant period has expired:]

This language provides funding for the 

Teacher Incentive Fund and describes 

eligibility, required elements of performancebased compensation systems, and other 

requirements for the program. 

F-10
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

Language Provision Explanation

9 [...Provided further, That up to 5 percent of 

such funds for competitive grants shall be 

available for technical assistance, training, 

peer review of applications, program 

outreach, and evaluation activities:]

This language allows the Secretary to use a 

portion of the amount provided for the 

Teacher Incentive Fund for technical 

assistance, training, peer review of 

applications, program outreach, and 

evaluation activities.

10 [...Provided further, That $250,000,000 of 

the funds for part D of title V of the ESEA 

shall be available through December 31, 

2016 for carrying out, in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of part D of title V of 

the ESEA, a preschool development grants 

program: Provided further, That the 

Secretary, jointly with the Secretary of HHS, 

shall make competitive awards to States for 

activities that build the capacity within the 

State to develop, enhance, or expand highquality preschool programs, including 

comprehensive services and family 

engagement, for preschool-aged children 

from families at or below 200 percent of the 

Federal poverty line: Provided further, That 

each State may subgrant a portion of such 

grant funds to local educational agencies and 

other early learning providers (including, but 

not limited to, Head Start programs and 

licensed child care providers), or consortia 

thereof, for the implementation of high-quality 

preschool programs for children from families 

at or below 200 percent of the Federal 

poverty line: Provided further, That 

subgrantees that are local educational 

agencies shall form strong partnerships with 

early learning providers and that subgrantees 

that are early learning providers shall form 

strong partnerships with local educational 

agencies, in order to carry out the 

requirements of the subgrant:]

This language provides funds for preschool 

development grants to build capacity in early 

childhood care and education, requires the 

Secretary to jointly administer the grants with 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

and establishes eligibility requirements for 

participants.

F-11
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

Language Provision Explanation

11 [...Provided further, That up to 3 percent of 

such funds for preschool development grants 

shall be available for technical assistance, 

evaluation, and other national activities 

related to such grants:]

This language allows the Secretary to use a 

portion of the funding provided for preschool 

development grants for technical assistance, 

evaluation, and other national activities 

related to such grants.

12 [...Provided further, That $10,000,000 of 

funds available under part D of title V of the 

ESEA shall be for the Full-Service 

Community Schools program:]

This language provides funds for Full-Service 

Community Schools grants. 

13 [...Provided further, That of the funds 

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

Secretary shall use up to $10,000,000 to 

carry out activities under section 5205(b) and 

shall use not less than $16,000,000 for 

subpart 2: Provided further, That of the 

funds available for subpart 1 of part B of title 

V of the ESEA, and notwithstanding section 

5205(a), the Secretary shall reserve up to 

$100,000,000 to make multiple awards to 

non-profit charter management organizations 

and other entities that are not for-profit 

entities for the replication and expansion of 

successful charter school models and shall 

reserve not less than $11,000,000 to carry 

out the activities described in section 

5205(a), including improving quality and 

oversight of charter schools and providing 

technical assistance and grants to authorized 

public chartering agencies in order to 

increase the number of high-performing 

charter schools: Provided further, That funds 

available for part B of title V of the ESEA may 

be used for grants that support preschool 

education in charter schools:]

This language establishes, from the Charter 

Schools Grants appropriation, a maximum 

amount for State Facilities Incentive grants 

and a minimum amount for Credit 

Enhancement for Charter School Facilities 

grants, allows the Secretary to reserve funds 

appropriated for Charter Schools Grants to 

make awards to charter management 

organizations and other entities for the 

replication and expansion of successful 

charter school models, allows the Secretary 

to reserve a portion of the appropriation for 

national activities, and allows grants under 

the program to be used for preschool 

education.

F-12
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

Language Provision Explanation

14 [...Provided further, That each application 

submitted pursuant to section 5203(a) shall 

describe a plan to monitor and hold 

accountable authorized public chartering 

agencies through such activities as providing 

technical assistance or establishing a 

professional development program, which 

may include evaluation, planning, training, 

and systems development for staff of 

authorized public chartering agencies to 

improve the capacity of such agencies in the 

State to authorize, monitor, and hold 

accountable charter schools: Provided 

further, That each application submitted 

pursuant to section 5203(a) shall contain 

assurances that State law, regulations, or 

other policies require that: (1) each 

authorized charter school in the State 

operate under a legally binding charter or 

performance contract between itself and the 

school's authorized public chartering agency 

that describes the rights and responsibilities 

of the school and the public chartering 

agency; conduct annual, timely, and 

independent audits of the school's financial 

statements that are filed with the school's 

authorized public chartering agency; and 

demonstrate improved student academic 

achievement; and (2) authorized public 

chartering agencies use increases in student 

academic achievement for all groups of 

students described in section 

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

most important factors when determining to 

renew or revoke a school's charter.]

This language establishes application 

requirements for grants to State educational 

agencies under the Charter Schools Program 

that go beyond the requirements in the 

authorizing statute.

F-13
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

Language Provision Explanation

15Provided further, That $120,000,000, to 

remain until expended, shall be for 

competitive grants to local educational 

agencies to develop and implement 

comprehensive strategies to improve 

socioeconomic integration in early childhood 

education programs and elementary and 

secondary schools, of which up to 

$2,500,000 may be used for national 

activities including technical assistance, 

evaluation, and dissemination:

This language provides authorization and a 

specific funding amount for a proposed 

Stronger Together program which would 

support competitive grants to LEAs to 

develop and implement comprehensive plans 

with concrete and ambitious goals for 

improving socioeconomic integration in early 

childhood education programs and 

elementary and secondary schools.

16Provided further, That $100,000,000 shall 

be for competitive grants to local educational 

agencies, in partnership with institutions of 

higher education and other public and private 

entities, to develop and implement strategies 

to provide high-quality instruction and other 

learning opportunities in computer science to 

students in pre-kindergarten through 

grade 12, including students in underserved 

communities or from groups historically 

underrepresented in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics fields: 

Provided further, That $2,500,000 of the 

funds provided in the previous proviso shall 

be for national activities including technical 

assistance, evaluation, and dissemination:

This language provides authorization and a 

specific funding amount for a proposed 

Computer Science for All Development 

Grants program which would support 

competitive grants to local educational 

agencies to provide high-quality instruction 

and other learning opportunities in computer 

science in pre-kindergarten through grade 

12, with a focus on expanding access to 

these opportunities for students in 

underserved communities or from groups 

historically underrepresented in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics 

fields.

17Provided further, That $10,000,000 shall be 

for grants to non-profit organizations to 

support teacher-led projects designed to 

improve educational outcomes for high-need 

students.

This language provides authorization and a 

specific funding amount for a proposed 

Teach to Lead program which would support 

the implementation, expansion, and 

dissemination of teacher-led projects that 

empower teachers and help them lead 

beyond the classroom. 

F-14
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2015 2016 2017

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation...................................................... $1,102,111 $1,181,226 $1,411,556

Discretionar y Comparative transfers to: ..................................

Education for the Disadvantaged for: ................

Innovative Approaches to Literacy.................. — -27,000 —

Safe Schools and Citizenship Education for: .....

Full Service Community Schools.................... — -10,000 —

Total, comparative discretionary 

appropriation.......................................... 1,102,111 1,144,226 1,411,556

Mandatory:

Mandator y Appropriation...................................................... 0 0 4,299,982

Total, discretionary and mandatory 

appropriation .................................................. 1,102,111 1,144,226 5,711,538

F-15
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2016......................................................................................... $1,144,226

2017........................................................................................... 5,711,538

Net change................................................ +4,567,312

Increases: 2016 base

Change

from base

Program:

Increase for the Education Innovation and Research 

program (formerly Investing in Innovation) to expand 

the evidence base for effective education interventions 

and support implementation of new provisions in ESSA 

requiring States and school districts to use evidencebased interventions in schools identified for 

comprehensive support and improvement and targeted 

support and improvement. $120,000 +$60,000

Increase for Teacher and School Leaders Incentive 

Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) to help 

local educational agencies (LEAs), State educational 

agencies (SEAs), and the Bureau of Indian Education 

develop, implement, improve, or expand human capital 

management systems or performance-based 

compensation systems. 230,000 +20,000

Funding for the reauthorized Supporting Effective 

Educator Development program (previously funded—at 

$94 million in fiscal year 2016—as an appropriations 

language set-aside under Title II Improving Teacher 

Quality State Grants in the School Improvement 

Programs account) to support competitive grants to 

institutions of higher education, national nonprofit 

entities, and the BIE to provide educators with 

evidence-based professional development and to 

support pathways that allow educators with 

nontraditional preparation and certification to obtain 

employment in traditionally underserved local 

educational agencies. 0 +100,000

F-16
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Changes—continued 

(dollars in thousands)

Increases: 2016 base

Change

from base

Program:

Increase for the School Leader Recruitment and 

Support program (formerly the School Leadership 

Program) to improve the recruitment, preparation, 

placement, support, and retention of effective principals 

and other school leaders in high-need schools. $16,368 +$13,632

Initial funding for STEM Master Teacher Corps grants 

to States to support the development of statewide 

STEM Master Teacher Corps to promote improved 

professional development and instruction in STEM

subjects as well as grants to States and non-profit 

organizations to support effective, statewide 

professional development programs in STEM subjects. 0 +10,000

Initial funding for Teach to Lead to support the 

implementation, expansion, and dissemination of 

teacher-led projects that empower teachers and help 

them lead beyond the classroom. 0 +10,000

Increase for Charter Schools Grants to expand the 

supply of high-quality public educational options 

available to students, especially students from lowincome families or attending low-performing schools, 

by creating and expanding effective charter schools. 333,172 +16,828

Increase for Magnet Schools Assistance to support 

competitive grants to LEAs to establish and operate 

magnet school programs that are part of an approved 

desegregation plan and that are designed to increase 

racial integration in the LEA by taking into account 

socioeconomic diversity. 96,647 +18,353

Initial funding for Stronger Together to support 

competitive grants to LEAs to develop and implement 

comprehensive plans with concrete and ambitious 

goals for improving school socioeconomic integration in 

preschool through grade 12. 0 +120,000

F-17
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Changes—continued 

(dollars in thousands)

Increases: 2016 base

Change

from base

Program:

Initial funding for the new Next Generation High 

Schools program to transform teaching and learning in 

high schools by encouraging partnerships among LEAs, 

postsecondary institutions, and other entities such as 

businesses and nonprofit organizations to prepare 

students for college and careers.

0 +$80,000

Initial funding for Computer Science for All 

Development Grants to support competitive grants to 

local educational agencies to provide high-quality 

instruction and other learning opportunities in computer 

science in preschool through grade 12, with a focus on 

expanding access to these opportunities for students in 

underserved communities or from groups historically 

underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics fields. 0 +100,000

Mandatory funding for Preschool for All to support 

grants to States to expand the number and availability 

of high-quality preschool programs to serve all 4-yearolds from low- and moderate-income families, and 

improve the quality of existing programs. 0 +1,299,982

Mandatory funding for RESPECT: Best Job in the 

World to support competitive grants to States with 

subgrants to LEAs to increase salaries for effective 

teachers in high-need schools, to help teachers and 

school leaders work together to determine meaningful 

activities to support teachers and students, and to 

improve working conditions. 0 1,000,000

Mandatory funding for Computer Science for All to 

support grants to SEAs to ensure that all students, 

including those in underserved communities or from 

historically underrepresented subgroups, have access 

to computer science and other rigorous instruction in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 0 2,000,000

Subtotal, increases +4,848,795

F-18
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Changes—continued 

(dollars in thousands)

Decreases: 2016 base

Change

from base

Program:

Eliminate funding for Advanced Placement, which is 

no longer authorized in the ESEA as amended by the 

ESSA. $28,483 -$28,483

Eliminate funding for Preschool Development Grants 

because funding for this program will be included in 

the budget request for the Department of Health and 

Human Services. 250,000 -250,000

Eliminate funding for the Non-Cognitive Skills

Initiative, which is no longer authorized in the ESEA 

as amended by the ESSA. 3,000 -3,000

Subtotal, decreases -281,483

Net change +4,567,312

F-19
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016

Estimate

footnote

2017 

Authorized

footnote

2017

Request

Discretionary Programs:

Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) 01 $120,000 (2) $180,000

Teacher and school leader incentive grants 

(ESEA II-B-1) 03 230,000 (4) 250,000

American history and civics academies 

(ESEA II-B-3, section 2232) 03 1,815 (4) 1,815

Supporting effective educator development 

(ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) 03,5 0 (4) 100,000

School leader recruitment and support (ESEA II-B-4, 

section 2243) 03 16,368 (4) 30,000

STEM master teacher corps (ESEA II-B-4, section 2245) -- 0 (4) 10,000

Teach to lead (proposed legislation) -- 0 To be determined6 10,000

Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) 03 333,172 270,000 350,000

Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) 03 96,647 94,000 115,000

Stronger together (proposed legislation) -- 0 To be determined6 120,000

Next generation high schools (proposed legislation) -- 0 To be determined 6 80,000

Computer science for all development grants (proposed 

legislation) -- 0 To be determined6 100,000

Ready to learn programming (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4643) 03 25,741 (2) 25,741

Advanced placement (ESEA I-G; struck by P.L. 114-95) 03,7 28,483 0 0

Preschool development grants (ESEA V-D subpart 1; 

repealed by P.L. 114-95) 03,8 250,000 (9) 0

Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) 03 27,000 (2) 27,000

Non-cognitive skills initiative (ESEA V-D, subpart 1; 

repealed by P.L. 114-95) 03,8 3,000 0

F-20

F-20
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Authorizing Legislation—continued

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016

Estimate

footnote

2017 

Authorized

footnote

2017

Request

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

4644) 03 $12,000 (2) $12,000

Mandatory Programs:

Preschool for all (proposed legislation) -- 0 To be determined6 1,299,982

Respect: Best job in the world (proposed legislation) -- 0 To be determined6 1,000,000

Computer science for all (proposed legislation) -- 0 To be determined6 2,000,000

Total definite authorization 0 364,000

Total discretionary appropriation 1,144,226 1,411,556

Portion of discretionary request not authorized 310,000

Total mandatory appropriation 0 4,299,982

1 The program is authorized in fiscal year 2016 through appropriations language. 2 A total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for Part F of Title IV. Of the funds appropriated for Part F, $5,000 thousand is reserved for Subpart 3 and of the 

remainder, for fiscal year 2017, 36 percent is authorized for the Education Innovation and Research program; 36 percent is authorized for Subpart 2; and 28 

percent is authorized for Subpart 4, which includes the Arts in Education, Ready to Learn Programming, and Javits Gifted and Talented programs. 3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; the program is authorized in fiscal year 2016 through appropriations language. 4 A total of $468,881 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. For fiscal year 2017, of the funds appropriated for Part B, 49.1 percent is authorized for 

Subpart 1, the Teacher and School Leader Incentive program; 34.1 percent is authorized for Subpart 2; 1.4 percent is authorized for Subpart 3, of which not 

less than 26 percent is reserved for American History and Civics Academies; and 15.4 percent is authorized is authorized for Subpart 4, 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. 5 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was authorized under ESEA II-A. 6 Authorizing legislation is sought for FY 2017.

F-21

F-21
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Authorizing Legislation—continued

(dollars in thousands)

7 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was authorized under ESEA I-G, which was struck by P.L. 114-95. 8 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was authorized under ESEA V-D, Subpart 1, which was repealed by P.L. 114-95. 9 The program is authorized under the Department of Health and Human Services per section 9212 of the Every Student Succeeds Act.

F-22

F-22
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Foot

-

note Appropriation Footnote

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

2009 Discretionary 867,517 976,8461 944,3141 996,425

Recovery Act Supplemental 

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

2010 Discretionary 1,489,949 1,347,363 1,234,7872 1,389,065

Rescission (PL 111-226) 

(Discretionary) -10,700

2011 Discretionary 6,330,000 1,870,12332,224,84321,856,1794

2012 Discretionary 4,995,000 821,41151,740,21251,527,536

2013 Discretionary 4,332,166 799,13361,545,96661,447,637

2014 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A71,331,598 931,317

2015 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A7 868,7218 852,111

2015 Mandatory 5,000,000 N/A708 0

2016 Discretionary 1,601,559 275,0009 694,6169 1,181,226

2016 Mandatory 1,000,000 0

9

0

9

0

2017 Discretionary 1,411,556

2017 Mandatory 4,299,982

1 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 3 The level for the House allowance reflect the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 4 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011 (P.L. 112-10). 5 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects 

Senate Committee action only. 6 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 7 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 8

 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only. 9

 The levels for 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.

F-23
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2016 Appropriations Reports

Competitive Grants for Rural Communities

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to ensure that competitive grant 

programs, including but not limited to the Charter Schools, Innovative 

Approaches to Literacy, Arts in Education, and SEED, support activities in rural 

communities. 

Response: The Department will continue to provide support for rural communities through 

Charter Schools Grants in fiscal year 2016, including by providing grants to State 

educational agencies to support the start-up of charter schools by developers 

serving those communities and by giving competitive priority for direct grants to 

charter school developers serving those communities in States not receiving 

grants. 

In fiscal year 2016, the Department intends to include a competitive preference 

priority in the Innovative Approaches to Literacy (IAL) competition that would 

encourage applicants to focus their projects in rural communities. IAL has used 

this strategy in two previous rounds of competition.

The Arts in Education program does not plan to hold any new competitions in 

fiscal year 2016.

The fiscal year 2015 competition for the Supportive Effective Educator 

Development Grants program included a competitive preference priority for highneed students, which applicants may define as students served by rural local 

educational agencies (LEAs).

The Investing in Innovation and Promise Neighborhood programs continue to use 

an absolute priority for applicants proposing to serve students enrolled in rural

LEAs.

Javits Gifted and Talented

Explanatory

Statement: The Department is directed to continue supporting a National Research Center 

on the Gifted and Talented.

Response: In fiscal year 2016, the Department will provide the third year of funding for the 

5-year Research Center grant initiated in fiscal year 2014. 

F-24
Summary of R equ est

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Click here for accessible version 

Amount Percent

Innovation and Improvement

 1. Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) 1 D 120,000 120,000 180,000 60,000 50.00%

 2. Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) D 230,000 230,000 250,000 20,000 8.70%

 3. American history and civics academies (ESEA II-B-3, section 2232) D --- 1,815 1,815 0 0.00%

 4. Supporting effective educator development (SEED) (ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) 2 D --- --- 100,000 100,000 ---

 5. School leader recruitment and support (ESEA II-B-4, section 2243) D 16,368 16,368 30,000 13,632 83.28%

 6. STEM master teacher corps (ESEA II-B-4, section 2245) D --- --- 10,000 10,000 ---

 7. Teach to lead (proposed legislation) D --- --- 10,000 10,000 ---

 8. Transition to teaching (ESEA II-C-1-B; struck by P.L. 114-95) D 13,700 0 0 0 ---

 9. Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) D 253,172 333,172 350,000 16,828 5.05%

 10. Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) D 91,647 96,647 115,000 18,353 18.99%

 11. Stronger together (proposed legislation) D --- --- 120,000 120,000 ---

 12. Next generation high schools (proposed legislation) D --- --- 80,000 80,000 ---

 13. Computer science for all development grants (proposed legislation) D --- --- 100,000 100,000 ---

 14. Ready to learn programming (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4643) D 25,741 25,741 25,741 0 0.00%

 15. Advanced placement (ESEA I-G; struck by P.L. 114-95) D 28,483 28,483 0 (28,483) -100.00%

 16. Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE): 

(a) Programs of national significance (ESEA V-D subpart 1; repealed by P.L. 114-95) D 48,000 0 0 0 ---

(b) Preschool development grants (ESEA V-D subpart 1; repealed by P.L. 114-95) 3 D 250,000 250,000 0 (250,000) -100.00%

(c) Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) D 25,000 27,000 27,000 0 0.00%

(d) Non-cognitive skills initiative (ESEA V-D, subpart 1; repealed by P.L. 114-95) 4 D --- 3,000 0 (3,000) -100.00%

(e) Javits gifted and talented education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4644) 4 D --- 12,000 12,000 0 0.00%

Subtotal 1,102,111 1,144,226 1,411,556 267,330 23.36%

 17. Preschool for all (proposed legislation) M --- --- 1,299,982 1,299,982 ---

 18. RESPECT: Best job in the world (proposed legislation) M --- --- 1,000,000 1,000,000 ---

 19. Computer science for all (proposed legislation) M --- --- 2,000,000 2,000,000 ---

Total 5 1,102,111 1,144,226 5,711,538 4,567,312 399.16%

Discretionary 5 D 1,102,111 1,144,226 1,411,556 267,330 23.36%

Mandatory M 0 0 4,299,982 4,299,982 ---

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

For most mandatory programs, the levels shown in the 2015 Appropriation column reflect the 7.3 percent sequester that went into effect October 1, 2014, and the levels shown in the 

2016 Appropriation column reflect the 6.8 percent reduction that went into effect on October 1, 2015, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). 

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was Investing in Innovation (i3), as authorized by P.L. 107-110, ARRA section 14007.

2 Adjusted for comparability. Funds were included under Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (previously Improving Teacher Quality State Grants) in the School Improvement Program account in 

the 2015 and 2016 Appropriation columns.

3 Funding for PDG is included in the 2017 President’s Budget for the Department of Health and Human Services.

4 Funds were included under the Fund for the Improvement of Education Programs of National Significance in the 2015 Appropriation column.

5 Adjusted for comparability. The 2016 Appropriation column excludes $10,000 thousand for Full-Service Community Schools because the program is requested in the 2017 President's Budget 

in the Safe Schools and Citizenship Education account.

2017 President's Budget

2016 Compared to 2016 Appropriation

Account, Program and Activity Appropriation

Category 

Code

2015 

Appropriation

2017 President's 

Budget

F-25

F-25
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Request

Programs in the Innovation and Improvement account support the goal of improving student 

achievement in five key ways: providing incentives to test, evaluate, and expand innovative 

educational strategies and practices; increasing the supply of effective teachers and principals; 

providing parents with expanded options for the education of their children; expanding access to 

computer science; and ensuring that all children have access to preschool. The Administration 

requests a total of $1.4 billion in discretionary funds and a total of $4.3 billion in mandatory 

funds.

Supporting Innovation

The Administration requests funding to support efforts to drive State and local innovation. 

Specifically, the request includes:

• $180.0 million for the Education Innovation and Research program (previously Investing 

in Innovation) to build on the program’s demonstrated success by supporting a higher 

number of awards in priority areas and expanding the program’s portfolio of evidence-based 

approaches to tackle common issues facing school districts and communities.

• $25.7 million for the Ready-To-Learn Television program to support the development and 

distribution of educational video programming for preschool and elementary school children 

and their parents, caregivers, and teachers to facilitate student academic achievement.

• $12.0 million for the Javits Gifted and Talented Education program to support 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 educational needs.

Supporting Educators

The Administration requests funding for programs that would provide both formula grants and 

competitive awards to help States and local educational agencies (LEAs) increase the 

effectiveness of teachers and principals.

• $250.0 million for Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants to develop, implement, 

improve, or expand human capital management systems or performance-based 

compensation systems, especially in high-need schools.

• $100.0 million for Supporting Effective Educator Development to provide competitive 

grants to institutions of higher education, national nonprofit entities, and the BIE to provide 

educators with evidence-based professional development and to support pathways that 

allow educators with nontraditional preparation and certification to obtain employment in 

traditionally underserved local educational agencies

• $30.0 million for the School Leader Recruitment and Support program to support grants 

to improve the recruitment, preparation, placement, support, and retention of effective 

principals and other school leaders in high-need schools. 

F-26
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Request—continued

• $27.0 million for the Arts in Education program to support State and local efforts to improve 

arts education, including arts programming in high-poverty schools, through the 

development and implementation of high-quality, cohesive, and innovative strategies for arts 

instruction, through grants to support development and dissemination of instructional 

materials and programming, and professional development for arts educators.

• $10.0 million for the STEM Master Teacher Corps program to support grants to improve 

the recruitment, preparation, placement, support, and retention of effective principals and 

other school leaders in high-need schools.

• $10.0 million for a proposed Teach to Lead program for the implementation, expansion, and 

dissemination of teacher-led projects that empower teachers and help them lead beyond the 

classroom

• $1.8 million for the American History and Civics Academies program for competitive 

grants to institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations to improve the 

quality of American history and civics education by providing intensive workshops for 

teachers and students.

The Administration also proposes $1.0 billion in mandatory funding for RESPECT: Best Job in 

the World to support competitive grants to States with subgrants to LEAs to increase salaries 

for effective teachers in high-need schools, to help teachers and school leaders work together to 

determine meaningful activities to support teachers and students, and to improve working 

conditions.

Increasing Diversity and Expanding Educational Options

The Administration’s Stronger Together Grants proposal would provide $120.0 million for 

competitive grants to LEAs to develop and implement comprehensive plans with concrete and 

ambitious goals for improving school socioeconomic integration in preschool through grade 12.

This proposed program supports voluntary community efforts to improve diversity and reduce or 

eliminate socioeconomic isolation in schools and is a central element of the Administration’s 

strategy for removing the barriers to learning that children living in concentrated poverty often 

face. Funds would support grants for planning and for implementation. 

The Administration requests $350.0 million for Charter Schools Grants to support the start-up, 

replication, and expansion of successful charter schools. The requested increase reflects the 

Administration’s strong commitment to build on this program’s demonstrated success in 

supporting effective school models and embraces the focus under the amended ESEA on 

strengthening charter school authorizing and oversight practices and ensuring access to 

high-quality schools for historically underserved student groups. In addition, the request would 

expand the program’s national activities authority to include support for emerging partnerships 

between charter schools and LEAs with strong potential to help improve academic outcomes.

Funds would also be used for grants to States and nonprofit entities to improve charter schools’ 

access to facilities.

F-27
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Request—continued

In addition, the Administration requests $115.0 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 in the LEA by taking into account socioeconomic 

diversity.

Computer Science and STEM

The Administration is proposing three major investments toward giving all students the 

opportunity to benefit from rigorous computer science education and be college and career 

ready for fields in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM):

• $2.0 billion in mandatory funding for fiscal year 2017, and a total of $4 billion over 3 years, 

for Computer Science for All for grants to State educational agencies to ensure that all 

students have access to computer science and other rigorous instruction in STEM fields.

States receiving grants would implement high-quality plans for ensuring universal access to 

computer science in high schools, providing a high-quality curriculum and progression of 

instruction and other learning opportunities in STEM in preschool through grade 8, preparing 

and further developing computer science teachers and support staff, and increasing access 

for underserved and disadvantaged students to other rigorous and advanced courses and 

programs, including Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses and dual 

or concurrent enrollment programs.

• $100.0 million for Computer Science for All Development Grants to support competitive 

grants to local educational agencies to provide high-quality instruction and other learning 

opportunities in computer science in preschool through grade 12, with a focus on expanding 

access to these opportunities for students in underserved communities or from groups 

historically underrepresented in STEM fields.

• $80.0 million for Next Generation High Schools to support transformation of the high 

school experience and more effectively prepare students for college and careers by using 

Federal, State, and local resources to create learning models that are rigorous, relevant, 

focus on real-world experiences, and incorporate personalized learning and career and 

college exploration. Special consideration would be given to projects designed to improve 

readiness for postsecondary education and careers in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) fields.

Preschool

The Administration is proposing $1.3 billion in mandatory funding for Preschool for All, which 

would support grants to States to expand the number and availability of high-quality preschool 

programs to serve all 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families, and improve the 

quality of existing programs. 

The Administration’s request for Preschool Development Grants is included in the Department 

of Health and Human Services budget proposal for fiscal year 2017, consistent with the ESSA.

F-28
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Request—continued

Discontinued Programs

The Administration is not requesting funding for the Advanced Placement program and NonCognitive Skills Initiative because they are not included in the reauthorized Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act. 

F-29
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Activities:

Education innovation and research

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$120,000 $180,000 +$60,000

1 Of the total amount appropriated for Title IV, Part F, 36 percent of the funds available under 

Sec. 4601(b)(2) are for Subpart 1.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As authorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 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, fieldinitiated innovations designed to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need 

students. EIR retains the core purpose of i3, which was authorized under Section 14007 of the 

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, and which supported innovative and proven 

approaches that address persistent education challenges while also building knowledge of what 

works in education. Changes from the i3 program include expansion of the entities eligible to 

receive funds, a new rural set-aside, and more flexible requirements for matching funds. In 

addition, a portion of the requested funds would be used to support activities to be carried out 

by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Education (ARPA-ED).

The EIR program incorporates a tiered-evidence framework that supports larger awards for

projects with the strongest evidence base and supports promising earlier-stage projects that are 

willing to undergo rigorous evaluation. Funds may be used for: (1) early-phase grants for the 

development, implementation, and feasibility testing of a program which prior research suggests 

has promise, in order to determine whether the program can improve student academic 

outcomes (similar to Development grants under i3); (2) mid-phase grants for implementation 

and rigorous evaluation of programs that have been successfully implemented under earlyphase grants or have met similar criteria for documenting program effectiveness (similar to 

Validation grants under i3); and (3) expansion and replication of programs that have been found 

to produce a sizable, important 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 a rigorous independent evaluation of the effectiveness of their project. 

Entities eligible to receive Education Innovation and Research funds are (1) local educational 

agencies (LEAs); (2) State educational agencies (SEAs); (3) the Bureau of Indian Education 

F-30
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

(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 agency, or an 

institution of higher education. 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, and the Secretary may 

waive this requirement under certain circumstances. In addition, the Secretary 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)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration requests $180 million for the Education Innovation and 

Research program, an increase of $60 million over the fiscal year 2016 appropriation for its 

predecessor, the i3 program. The request includes appropriations language overriding the 

authorized funding level for this program. The proposed increase is consistent with the 

Administration’s commitment to expanding the evidence base for effective education 

interventions and is necessary in light of provisions requiring States and school districts to use 

evidence-based interventions in schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement 

or implementing targeted support and improvement plans under the reauthorized ESEA. 

Robust Federal investment in identifying such interventions through the EIR program is 

essential to ensuring that LEAs have the tools they need to address the challenges of turning 

around their lowest-performing schools. To date, innovation projects have been funded in a 

wide range of areas—teachers and principals, school turnaround, standards and assessments, 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), rural education, parent and family 

engagement, English Learners, students with disabilities, high school redesign—that are 

applicable to interventions LEAs are likely to implement under the ESSA.

The proposed funding level would allow the EIR program to fund more high-quality applications 

to not only build evidence of effectiveness but demonstrate the feasibility of scaling effective 

interventions to reach more students and schools. There is a significant demand from the field 

to test innovation strategies, to examine how promising strategies work in different settings, and 

to scale-up effective strategies, as demonstrated by the number of applicants for EIR’s 

predecessor, i3—the Department received almost 5,000 i3 applications or pre-applications

between 2010 and 2015, but made only 156 grants, for a total application-success rate of 

3.1 percent. Furthermore, the EIR program expanded the types of entities that are eligible for 

program funds to SEAs, the Bureau of Indian Education, and to nonprofit organizations applying 

alone, along with expanding eligible partners to businesses, educational service agencies, and 

institutions of higher education, likely creating more demand for program funding. 

F-31
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

Additional funding could also support greater numbers of the larger awards that the Department 

anticipates making as applicants seek to build on the positive results of i3 Development (early 

phase) and Validation (mid-phase) grants made in previous years that are ready to be taken to 

scale. Thus, a larger share of funds would be used to expand activities of demonstrated 

effectiveness. In addition, the new provisions allowing grantees to use Federal, State, local, or 

private funds to meet the program’s matching requirements (matching funds were limited to 

private sources under i3) create an incentive to leverage existing public education funding, 

including Federal formula funding, in support of evidence-based practices. 

The Department would reserve approximately $7.5 million for technical assistance and 

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

rigorous evaluation plans. This type of technical assistance has proven critical to ensuring that 

i3 grantees were able to conduct rigorous evaluations and produce information that can be used 

by researchers and practitioners alike, and i3 grantees are also using technical assistance funds 

to explore new ways to disseminate their lessons to other schools and LEAs. Evaluations of 

many completed i3 Validation and Scale-up grants are expected to meet the Institute of 

Education Science’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards with or without reservations, 

and findings are being shared publically so that the entire field benefits from lessons learned 

through these investments. In addition, this type of technical assistance has helped many 

education organizations improve their capacity to conduct rigorous research and incorporate 

sound evaluation plans when trying out new strategies, and has provided support to researchers 

in designing and implementing evaluations that are of real-time, practical use to practitioners.

The following examples illustrate the outcomes that can be expected from continued, expanded 

investment in building the evidence base for effective education interventions under the EIR 

program: 

• The final report for Teach for America (TFA), which received a grant to significantly increase 

the size of its teacher corps, meets WWC standards without reservations. This report 

included results from a study that used random assignment to look at the effectiveness of 

TFA elementary school teachers that were recruited and trained in the second year of the 

i-3 Scale-Up grant. This study found that, on average, these TFA elementary school 

teachers, who averaged 1.7 years of experience were as effective as non-TFA teachers, 

who averaged 13.6 years of experience in both math and reading.1 In certain grades and 

subjects—specifically, preschool through grade 2 reading—TFA teachers were more 

effective than their more experienced counterparts; there was a positive, statistically 

significant effect on student reading achievement equivalent to about 1.3 additional months 

of learning . This study builds on other experimental studies on TFA teachers (see Decker 

et al. 20042 and Clark et. Al 20133

) that found TFA teachers had positive effects on 

students’ mathematics achievement.

1 http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/media/publications/pdfs/education/tfa_investing_innovation.pdf 2 http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/teach.pdf 3 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20134015/pdf/20134015.pdf

F-32

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

• Preliminary evaluation results from the Reading Recovery grant showed a sizable, 

statistically-significant effect on reading comprehension. On average, students in the 

Reading Recovery group scored at the 39th percentile nationally on the Iowa Test of Basic 

Skills (ITBS) versus the 19th percentile for the control group of students. Reading Recovery

provides struggling first grade readers with one-on-one tutoring by highly-trained, certified 

teachers for 30 minutes daily for a 3–5 month period. The final evaluation report for this 

grantee is due in early 2016.

• An i3 Validation grant is supporting the expansion of high-performing charter schools in 

Tennessee’s Achievement School District, which is focused on turning around the bottom 

5 percent of the State’s schools. One such i3-supported school, Gestalt Community 

Schools, helped high-poverty, high-minority student populations from several chronically 

low-performing schools outperform the State average in 2012 by 13.7 percentage points in 

English Language Arts and 9.4 percentage points in mathematics. 

• Another i3 Validation grantee, the National Math and Science Initiative’s College Readiness 

Program, has helped increase enrollment and passing scores in college-level Advanced 

Placement (AP) courses in Colorado. On average, in the first year of program 

implementation, AP enrollment increased by 81 percent in 23 participating schools and the 

number of passing scores on AP math, science, and English exams increased by 70. The 

schools increased the number of low-income students attaining passing scores by 78 

percent; the number of female students attaining passing scores in math and science by 

90 percent; and the number of African-American and Hispanic students attaining passing 

scores by 107 percent. For students of color and low-income students, these increases in 

qualifying scores outpace their average increase in enrollment, meaning that the pass rate is 

increasing for these students as enrollment rises.

• In east Georgia, Carroll County Schools has expanded a partnership with Southwire, a 

leading manufacturer of electrical wire and cable, to offer real-world learning opportunities in 

science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields to disadvantaged students. The 

Carroll County partnership pairs rigorous STEM coursework and student supports with paid 

apprenticeships at the Southwire manufacturing plant. Although the program targets 

students at the highest risk of dropping out, and all participating students are economically 

disadvantaged, the graduation rate is over 10 percentage points higher for participating 

students (77.8 percent) than the district rate (67.5 percent). 

• St. Vrain Valley Unified School District in St. Vrain, Colorado has leveraged a 

2010 i3 Development grant to develop more rigorous learning opportunities for high school 

students. The St. Vrain School District has built a partnership with the University of 

Colorado, IBM, and other private sector leaders to create a new STEM academy at Skyline 

High School and offer a STEM-focused high school certificate. Between the 2010 and 

2012 school years, St. Vrain’s graduation rate rose by 10 percentage points overall (from 

78.8 percent to 88.4 percent), and by over 20 percentage points for Hispanic students (from 

60.7 percent to 81.5 percent). 

F-33
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

In addition, the Department may reserve up to $30 million for ARPA-ED. ARPA-ED would be a 

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

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

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

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

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

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

expended.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Amount for grants $113,416 $112,800 $141,000

Number of new awards 13 12–20 15–25

Range of new awards $3,000–20,000 $3,000–20,000 $3,000–20,000

Peer review of new award 

applications $696 $1,200 $1,500

National activities $5,888 $6,000 $7,500

ARPA-ED 0 0 $30,000

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

this program.

The performance measures discussed in this section are the measures for the i3 program. The 

Department will review these measures to determine if they are aligned with the purpose and 

requirements under the EIR program, and revise them or create new ones, if needed. 

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.

F-34
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

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

Year Target Actual

2012 70% 60%

2013 75 60

2014 80 40

2015 60

2016 66

2017 66

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

Year Target Actual

2012 50% 70%

2013 54 58

2014 60 57

2015 65

2016 68

2017 68

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

submitted through December 31, 2014. Actual percentages are based on partial data; one 

grantee did not provide targets for the number of students that would be served. 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 2015 will be available by December 2016.

Over the past 5 years, several Scale-up grantees have struggled to implement their projects at 

the scale proposed in the application. Program staff anticipated this possibility, but did not 

anticipate the severity of the issues grantees would face. In some cases, grantees carrying out 

studies that involve random assignment have encountered issues trying to recruit the number of 

teachers that would need to be involved in such studies, which in turn affected the number of 

students ultimately served (fewer teachers involved led to fewer students served). For example, 

one grantee found that teachers that were supposed to participate in a study were not 

comfortable being compared in a randomized trial with other peers. Program staff are 

developing a technical assistance plan to provide additional support to grantees that may 

struggle with scaling their intervention as well as a plan to detect these issues earlier. Note that

two of the five Scale-up projects have exceeded their goals regarding this measure, and that all 

projects are still on track to produce studies with sufficient sample sizes to examine the impact

of their interventions rigorously.

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.

F-35
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

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

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

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

Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2012 80% 100%

2013 80 100

2014 80 100

2015 80

2016 83

2017 100

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

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

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

Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2012 90% 89%

2013 92 89

2014 94 100

2015 75

2016 78

2017 100

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

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

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2012 94% 100%

2013 95 100

2014 96 99

2015 96

2016 96

2017 100

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

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 2015 will be available by December 2016. 

The measures for Validation and Scale-up grants assess whether grantee evaluations, and thus 

their evidence of effectiveness, would meet the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence 

F-36
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

Standards with or without reservations at scale. Assessment of evaluation design and efficacy 

is based on reviews by external reviewers trained in the WWC standards. A well-designed 

study is one that is well-implemented and would meet the WWC standards with or without 

reservations. An independent evaluation means that the organization conducting the evaluation 

is not responsible for project development and implementation. To meet the Validation and 

Scale-up grant requirement for providing evidence of effectiveness at improving student 

outcomes, a study must estimate the impact of the program, practice, or strategy on one or 

more of the student outcomes specified in the intervention’s logic model and meet WWC 

Outcome Standards in terms of face validity, alignment, reliability, and validity. Actual data may 

vary each year because a number of factors may affect grantees’ capacity to maintain the rigor 

of the evaluation throughout the life of their projects. For example, differences in attrition among 

students in treatment and control groups could pose a significant challenge to successful 

implementation of a project evaluation. Furthermore, given the small number of projects in the 

Scale-up grant category, problems in one project would dramatically change the percentage of 

projects meeting the measure. 

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

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

intervention group. The two types of designs that qualify are: (1) pre-post or interrupted time 

series designs (without a comparison group); or (2) comparison group designs that compare 

outcomes between groups.

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

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

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

Year Target Actual

2012 80% 100%

2013 80 100

2014 80 100

2015 80

2016 83

2017 100

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

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

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

Year Target Actual

2012 90% 100%

2013 90 100

2014 90 100

2015 90

2016 93

2017 100

F-37
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

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

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

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

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2012 90% 97%

2013 90 97

2014 90 99

2015 90

2016 95

2017 100

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

In 2013, the contractor conducting the national evaluation of the i3 program revised the 

standards for this measure in order to make them clearer and more objective. 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 2015 will be available by December 2016. 

Efficiency measures

The Department has established cost per student as the efficiency measure for the i3 program. 

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

data grantees reported. The Department has 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 i3 projects tend to be large due to the complexity of the 

evaluation designs and the goal of meeting WWC standards. Data for 2014 represent all 

5 Scale-up grants, all 35 Validation grants, and 71 of 77 Development grants. Data for fiscal 

year 2015 will be available by December 2016. 

Year Cost per student, 

Scale-up grants

Cost per student, 

Validation grants

Cost per student, 

Development grants

2012 $61 $159 $182

2013 237 181 140

2014 201 21,463 633

2015

2016

2017

Additional information: The large increase in the cost per student reported for 2014 for 

Validation grants is due primarily to one project that missed its target for students to be served

for its first year by a wide margin. That project is working with program staff and technical 

assistance providers to get back on track. If the data for that project were excluded, the cost 

F-38
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

per student for 2014 for Validation grants would be $986. That cost is still significantly larger 

than the previous years’, due to several grantees that also missed their target for students to be 

served, but to a lesser degree.

F-39
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

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 2017 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

20162 2017 Change

$230,000 $250,000 +$20,000

1 Subpart 1 of Title II, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student 

Succeeds Act, is authorized to receive 49.1 percent of the appropriation for part B activities in 2017. 2 The 2016 funding was for the Teacher Incentive Fund program.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants program (TSLIG) was authorized by the 

Every Student Succeeds Act as the successor to the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), which was 

operated under appropriations language authority from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2016. The 

newly authorized program provides funds to help eligible entities develop, implement, improve, 

or expand human capital management systems or performance-based compensation systems 

in schools served by the grantees.

Under the TSLIG, the Secretary makes competitive grant awards to eligible entities for a period 

of up to 3 years, with the option for a renewal of no more than 2 years if the grantee 

demonstrates that funds are being used effectively. Eligible entities include local education 

agencies (LEAs), including charter schools that are LEAs; State agencies; the Bureau of Indian 

Education (BIE); and partnerships of LEAs, State agencies, and the BIE with nonprofit or forprofit entities. In making grants, the Secretary 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 are defined as systems by which an LEA makes and implements human 

capital decisions, such as decisions on hiring, professional development, dismissal, tenure, and 

promotion and that include a performance-based compensation system. Performance-based 

compensation systems mean 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 may include differentiated levels of compensation 

for positions in hard-to-staff schools and subject areas, and recognition of skills and knowledge 

F-40
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

of teachers, principals, and other school leaders as demonstrated through additional 

responsibilities and evidence of professional achievement.

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

improve, or expand human capital management systems or performance-based compensation 

systems, 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 Secretary 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 

carry out an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program, and the Secretary may reserve up to 

1 percent of each year’s appropriation for evaluation and technical assistance.

The predecessor program, TIF, also supported the development and implementation of 

performance-based compensation systems and human capital management systems that were 

designed to measure and improve educator effectiveness and provide effective educators with 

incentives to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles. The newly authorized 

TSLIG expands the program to place a greater focus on the development of comprehensive 

human capital management systems in addition to performance based compensation systems. 

Further, it emphasizes the role principals and school leaders. A final competition for TIF awards 

will be conducted in fiscal year 2016.

F-41
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2012 .................................................................................... $299,433

2013 ...................................................................................... 283,771

2014 ...................................................................................... 288,771

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

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

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $250 million for the TSLIG, $20 million more than the 2016 level for 

the predecessor TIF program. The request includes appropriations language overriding the 

authorized funding level for this program. The proposed increase reflects the high priority that 

the Administration places on supporting State and local efforts to develop tools and incentives 

designed to strengthen instruction, improve student academic outcomes, and develop and 

retain effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders. Fiscal year 2017 funds would 

support an estimated $193 million in new competitive grant awards to develop, implement, 

improve, or expand human capital management systems and performance-based compensation 

systems that have as their goal recruitment, development, and retention of excellent educators 

in high-need schools in order to raise student academic achievement and close the 

achievement gap between high- and low-performing students. In addition, funds would support 

continuation costs of grants made under the TIF program, peer review of new applications, 

technical assistance, and evaluation.

Effective human capital management systems include comprehensive and strategic approaches 

to recruiting, developing, evaluating, supporting, and retaining an excellent and diverse educator 

workforce. They include educator evaluation systems that differentiate performance based on 

multiple measures, including growth in student learning; and strategies that align evidencebased activities for preparing, supporting, retaining, paying, and advancing effective teachers 

and school leaders. As a Nation, we must find ways to support teachers and principals so 

they—and their students—can succeed, and to retain effective educators and expand their 

impact through new leadership roles. Past TIF competitions have helped States and school 

districts in developing teacher and principal evaluation and support systems to improve hiring 

practices, provide educators meaningful feedback and targeted professional development, and 

link personnel decisions to performance, but there is much more work to do to ensure more 

effective teachers and principals serve and stay in high-need schools.

Enhancing State and district strategies for supporting and retaining excellent educators will be 

essential for implementing the teacher equity plans that States have submitted to the 

Department under the Administration’s Excellent Educators for All initiative. All 50 States have 

developed and submitted plans that identify the most critical gaps in the rates at which students 

from low-income families and students of color are taught by inexperienced, unqualified, and 

out-of-field teachers and outline the strategies that States will implement to eliminate these 

gaps. A key element of these plans in many States will be improving their systems for 

recruiting, training, and placing new teachers and school leaders and compensating and 

F-42
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

retaining effective educators in high-poverty, high-minority schools, and this program supports 

those efforts.

When designing the grant competition, the Department will build on past work, recognizing that 

the most successful efforts to transform support and retention of teachers and principals have 

had a sharp focus on improving outcomes for students and retaining effective educators, 

ambitious scope, and demonstrated capacity to sustain the work, like District of Columbia Public 

Schools (DCPS)’s IMPACT and Leadership Initiative for Teachers (LIFT) systems. DCPS’s 

rigorous evaluation system, targeted professional support, and rapidly accelerated pay and 

career advancement for strong performers have strengthened recruitment and retention of 

effective educators, and we believe this approach to teacher compensation has contributed to 

gains in student academic outcomes and decreased achievement gaps.1

 Hillsborough County 

Public Schools, another TIF grantee, has also successfully implemented an educator evaluation 

system with performance-based compensation and career advancement (Performance 

Outcomes with Effective Rewards, or POWER) designed to increase the number of effective 

teachers recruited to and retained in high-need schools and strengthen teacher leadership in 

the district.

New awards in fiscal year 2017 would support entities with bold plans for improving student 

outcomes through the use of human capital management systems and performance-based 

compensation systems that have as their goal recruitment, development, and retention of 

excellent educators in high-need schools to enhance ongoing State and LEA reforms to improve 

the overall quality of instruction to improve student achievement. The Department also would 

require grantees to evaluate the effectiveness, fairness, quality, consistency, and reliability of 

their systems, and to use this information to refresh those systems. In addition, the Department 

would promote sustainability by encouraging applicants to explain how systems would be 

continued after the end of the grant, including through the use of other Federal funds like the 

formula-based Title II Supporting Effective Instruction grants.

The Administration’s overall request for fiscal year 2017 includes a set of initiatives that both 

complement the work of the TSLIG and help States, LEAs, institutions of higher education, and 

other partners address each phase of a teacher and school leader’s career, including new 

innovations in how we better prepare, recognize and support teachers and leaders. The 

requests for the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants, which provides broad support to 

improve the quality of instruction and teacher effectiveness; Supporting Effective Educator 

Development, which will support innovation in the areas of alternative certification and 

professional development; School Leader Recruitment and Support, which recognizes the 

crucial role of effective principals and other school leaders; and Teacher and Principal 

Pathways, which will increase the quality of education preparation programs would complement 

work supported under this program. In addition, funding for research programs at the Institute 

of Education Sciences (IES) supports research on strategies for improving the performance of

1 Dee & Wyckoff, “Incentives, Selection, and Teacher Performance: Evidence from Impact,” National 

Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 19529 (2013); U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP), District Profiles and 2011 and 2013 Assessments.

F-43

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

classroom teachers in ways that promote student learning and academic achievement, including 

that of students with disabilities.

The Department would use up to 1 percent of the appropriation for evaluation and technical 

assistance.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures1 2015 2016 2017

Amount for new awards 0 $52,115 $193,385

Number of new awards 0 5−10 20−40

Average new awards —- $7,500 $6,500

Amount for continuation awards $224,312 $173,035 $52,115

Number of continuation awards 33 32 5−10

Average continuation awards $6,798 $5,407 $7,500

Peer review 0 $874 $2,000

Evaluation and technical assistance2,3 $5,688 $3,976 $2,500

1 The information shown for 2015 and 2016 is for the Teacher Incentive Fund program. The information shown 

for 2017 is for the Teacher and Leader Incentive Fund program. 2 Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds 

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

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

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. The Department used this authority to pool $1,150 thousand 

from the total shown on the Evaluation line in 2015 and 2016 and may reserve additional funds under the ESEA 

pooled evaluation authority in 2017. 3 In 2015 and 2016, appropriations language authorized the Secretary to use up to 5 percent of program funds 

for technical assistance, training, peer review of applications, program outreach, and evaluation. Under ESSA, the 

Secretary may use up to 1 percent of program funds for evaluation and technical assistance.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

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

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

program. The performance measures presented are for the predecessor program, TIF. The 

Administration will develop new performance measures for TSLIG.

F-44
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

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

2013: (1) the percentage of teachers and principals who are rated at each effectiveness level, 

as measured by the grantee’s evaluation system; (2) the percentage of teachers teaching in a 

high-need field or subject, such as teaching English Learners, students with disabilities, or 

STEM, who are rated at each effectiveness level; (3) the percentage of teachers and principals 

who were rated at each effectiveness level in the previous year and who returned to serve in the 

same high-need school in the LEA; and (4) the percentage of school districts participating in a 

TIF grant that use educator evaluation systems to inform key personnel decisions. The teacher 

and principal evaluation ratings for these measures are based, in significant part, on evidence of 

improved student outcomes.

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

2012

2013 27% 30%

2014 17 20

2015

2016

2017

Additional information: The Department collects these data from grantee annual performance 

reports. Around half of these highly effective educators (52 percent of the teachers and 

50 percent of the principals in 2014) were serving in high-need schools. Results for 2015 are 

expected to be available in March 2016.

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

2012

2013 24%

2014 13

2015

2016

2017

Additional information: The Department collects these data from grantee annual performance 

reports. For 2014, around 29 percent of these teachers were serving in high-need schools. 

Results for 2015 are expected to be available in March 2016.

F-45
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

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

evaluation systems to inform key personnel decisions.

Personnel decision 2013 Actual 2014 Actual

Recruitment 51% 81%

Hiring 51 87

Placement 53 74

Retention 56 66

Dismissal 40 67

Tenure 25 17

Career advancement 64 89

Professional development 71 100

All of the above 25 7

Additional information: The Department collects these data from grantee annual performance 

reports. Results for 2015 are expected to be available in March 2016.

The Department is developing measures for the 2016 TIF competition that will be published with 

the 2016 notice inviting applications.

Other performance information

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is conducting a rigorous national evaluation, using a 

randomized controlled methodology, to assess the impact of a pay-for-performance bonus on 

student achievement and on effective teacher and principal recruitment and retention in highneed schools and subjects. An initial report, published in September 2014, provided 

implementation information prior to the actual distribution of annual performance information 

and bonuses to educators.1

 Researchers found that after 1 year, fewer than half of all TIF 

districts were fully implementing the program. In a subset of districts that participated in the 

random assignment study, most educators reported that they were satisfied with their 

professional opportunities, school environment, and the TIF program, but, on average, 

educators in schools that offered pay-for-performance bonuses tended to be less satisfied than 

educators in schools that did not offer such bonuses. While educators in schools offering payfor-performance bonuses were more satisfied with the opportunity to earn additional pay, a 

greater percentage indicated feeling increased pressure to perform due to the TIF program. In 

addition, many educators did not appear to be well-informed about important components of the 

program, including the size of pay-for-performance bonuses they could earn. The final report is 

expected in late 2017. IES is also conducting a study to assess the impact of teacher and 

leader performance evaluation and support systems.2

 This study will address the impact of 

these systems on educator practices, supports provided to educators, and student academic 

achievement. It will also describe districts’ and educators’ experiences implementing these 

systems. A report on the study’s first year of implementation is expected in spring 2016.

1 “Impact Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund,” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_incentive.asp. 2 “Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Performance Evaluation Systems,” 

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

F-46

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics academies

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

Section 2232)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$1,815 $1,815 0

_________________

1 Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B (authorized at $468,881 thousand), 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

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.

Under the program as authorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), 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. 

F-47
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics academies

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012......................................................................0

2013......................................................................0

2014......................................................................0

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

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

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $1.8 million for American History and Civics Academies for fiscal 

year 2017, the same as the fiscal year 2016 level. The request includes appropriations 

language specifying the funding level for this program. Funds would be used to continue 

awards initially made in fiscal year 2016 under the program as authorized by the ESSA. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 Notes2017 Notes

Amount for new awards $1,797 0

Amount for continuation awards 0 $1,815

Number of awards 3–6 3–6

Peer review of new award applications $18 0

______________

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal year 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds 

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

authority is included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the ESSA (section 8601(c)) and would provide the same 

flexibility in fiscal year 2017. Some or all of the funds that may be reserved from American History and Civics

Academies may be used under the pooled evaluation authority in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators later in 2016 to assess the 

impact of the activities that receive support under this program. The development of these 

measures would build on our experience in creating performance measures for other programs, 

and the Department would also seek to align program measures for American History and 

Civics Academies with measures for related programs.

F-48
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization:1

Budget Authority: Period of fund availability: 

2016 2017 Change

$93,9932 $100,000 +$6,007

1 Of the amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, at least 15.4 percent must be reserved for Subpart 4, and at 

least 74 percent of that amount must be reserved for Section 2242. 2 These funds were made available through a reservation of Improving Teacher Quality State Grant funding 

authorized by the 2016 Department of Education Appropriations Act.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

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

fiscal years 2011−2016 through appropriations language and subsequently incorporated into the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA). 

SEED 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, to:

• Support pathways that allow teachers, principals, or other school leaders with nontraditional 

preparation and certification to obtain employment in traditionally underserved local 

educational agencies (LEAs);

• Provide evidence-based professional development activities that address literacy, 

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

• Provide professional development that enhances or enables student opportunities in dual 

enrollment programs or early college high school settings;

• Make services and learning opportunities freely available to LEAs, including through publicly 

accessible electronic means; or

• Provide 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 and may be renewed for one additional 2-year period 

if the grantee demonstrates successful progress. To the extent practicable, the Department 

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

diverse areas. No entity may receive more than one grant in a single competition.

F-49
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

The statute requires grantees to use non-Federal sources, in cash or in kind, to cover at least 

25 percent of the project costs each year. The Secretary may waive or modify this cost-sharing 

requirement in cases of demonstrated financial hardship.

The reservation under Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (the predecessor to Supporting 

Effective Instruction State Grants) for SEED grants grew from 1 percent in 2011 to 4 percent in 

2016. Under the SEED program, the Department makes grants to national nonprofit 

organizations to support projects with evidence of effectiveness that recruit, select, and prepare 

or provide professional development activities for teachers or principals. The 

2014 appropriations act also allowed the Department to reserve up to 10 percent of SEED funds 

for related research, dissemination, evaluation, technical assistance, and outreach activities; 

this reservation was reduced to 8 percent of SEED funds in fiscal years 2015 and 2016. ESSA 

provides separate authority for SEED under Title II, Part B, Subpart 4, Section 2242, and the 

Administration is requesting 2017 funds under that authority.

The Department reserved 8 percent of SEED funds for evaluation and technical assistance in 

fiscal years 2015 and 2016, consistent with the appropriations language governing the program 

prior to enactment of the ESSA. In fiscal year 2017, section 8601 of the ESEA, as amended by 

ESSA, allows the Department to reserve up to 0.5 percent of SEED funds for evaluation.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2012............................................................................. $36,999

2013............................................................................... 35,067

2014............................................................................... 46,997

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

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

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $100 million for the SEED program, an increase of $6 million from 

the 2016 appropriation. The Administration is requesting an increase because the program is a 

very effective vehicle to support evidence-based State and local educator preparation and 

development efforts that could serve as models for similar efforts across the country. The 

proposal also complements the proposed Computer Science for All Development Grants, given 

the need for effective preparation and professional development to expand access to computer 

science education.

The proposed increase would expand efforts to improve teacher and principal effectiveness and 

ensure that all students have equitable access to effective and highly effective teachers and 

principals. More specifically, the program would increase the number of effective teachers and 

principals by supporting grantees that would provide evidence-based professional development 

activities and prepare teachers and principals from nontraditional preparation and certification 

routes to serve in traditionally underserved local educational agencies.

F-50
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

Examples of currently funded projects include:

• An award to the KIPP Foundation to recruit and prepare principals to serve 

95,000 high-need students, enhance training and supports to increase the number of 

principals who are highly effective, and extend KIPP’s impact to over 3 million students in 

major urban and rural districts. Lessons learned will be shared through a collaborative 

professional learning community.

• An award to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards to expand a project 

that aims to improve student learning by strengthening structures, policies, and programs 

that advance teacher growth and National Board Certification.

• An award to Teach for America to provide high-quality pre-service training to 

8,500 preschool to grade 12 teachers in all content areas, in order to prepare them for work 

in low-income communities.

• An award to the Center for Civic Education to support improved teaching and learning in the 

area of civics and government. 

This program is an important investment in expanding the evidence base of practices that build 

educator effectiveness, particularly in the area of professional development, where there 

currently is little evidence of effective practices that improve student achievement.1

 The 

Department plans to continue to use evidence of effectiveness as an eligibility requirement in 

2017. 

The Department has also included a priority for projects supporting STEM educators in past 

competitions, and intends to continue that priority in the 2017 competition. This priority supports 

the President’s goal of developing 100,000 new effective and highly effective STEM teachers 

while also building evidence on the characteristics and requirements of high-quality STEM 

teacher preparation and development programs.

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

1 “The Impact of Professional Development Models and Strategies on Teacher Practice and Student 

Achievement in Early Reading, September 2008,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_reading.asp.; 

“Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study, May 2011,” 

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

F-51

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures1 2015 2016 2017

Amount for new awards $51,259 $4,535 $95,242

Number of new awards 12 1 20

Range of new awards $1,607−$7,586 NA $2,000−$10,000

Amount for continuation awards $13,244 $60,333 $53,710

Number of continuation awards 4 13 13

Range of continuation awards $2,013−$4,864 $2,030−$7,703 $771−$7,844

Peer review of new applications $110 $0 $250

National activities, including 

evaluation and technical assistance2 $4,864 $7,519 $500

1 The fiscal year 2015 and 2016 SEED funds were available for 15 months. The obligations shown for 2015 and 

2016 are the amounts obligated in 2015 and estimated to be obligated in 2016, including carryover funds, not the 

amounts appropriated for these years. The estimated obligations for 2017 include obligations from the amount 

appropriated in 2016 as well as the funds requested for 2017. 2

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

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

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

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

this authority in fiscal years 2015 and 2016, it may do so in fiscal year 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

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

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

this program.

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 participants who serve concentrations of high-need students and are 

highly effective; 

F-52
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

• The percentage of participants who serve concentrations of high-need students, are highly 

effective, and serve for at least 2 years; and 

• The cost per such participant.

The Department may revise one or more of these measures to reflect the ESSA. Grantees will 

report annually on each measure; in addition grantees report on their performance for projectspecific objectives. Baseline data for the 2015 grantees is expected to be available in late 2017.

F-53
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title II, Part B, Subpart 4, 

Section 2243)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization:1

Budget Authority: Period of fund availability: 

2016 2017 Change

$16,368 $30,000 +$13,632

1 Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 15.4 percent is available for Subpart 4.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

School Leader Recruitment and Support grants fund activities to improve the recruitment, 

preparation, placement, support, and retention of effective principals and other school leaders in 

high-need schools. The program is the successor to the School Leadership program. Activities 

may include:

• Developing or implementing leadership training programs designed to prepare and support 

principals or other school leaders in high-need schools, including through new or alternative 

pathways or school leader residency programs;

• Developing or implementing programs or activities for recruiting, selecting, and developing 

aspiring or current principals or other school leaders to serve in high-need schools;

• Developing or implementing programs for recruiting, developing, and placing school leaders 

in schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities and targeted 

support and improvement activities required by section 1111(d) of Title I of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA);

• Providing continuous professional development for principals and other school leaders in 

high-need schools;

• Developing and disseminating information on best practices and strategies for effective 

school leadership in high-need schools; and

• Developing other evidence-based programs or activities focused on principals or other 

school leaders in high-need schools that can be used by State educational agencies (SEAs) 

and local educational agencies (LEAs) implementing Title II Supporting Effective Instruction 

State grants.

F-54
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Funds are awarded competitively to eligible entities, which include LEAs that serve high-need 

schools, SEAs, and the Bureau of Indian Education, or any of those entities in consortia with 

nonprofit organizations or institutions of higher education (IHEs). For this program, high-need 

schools are defined as elementary schools with at least 50 percent of enrolled students from 

families below the poverty line or secondary schools with at least 40 percent of enrolled 

students from families below the poverty line.

In awarding grants, the Secretary must give priority to applicants that will implement evidencebased activities and that have a demonstrated ability to prepare or develop principals who have 

improved school-level student outcomes, have become principals in high-need schools, and 

remain principals in such schools for multiple years.

The Secretary also must ensure that, to the extent practicable, grants are distributed among 

eligible entities that will serve geographically diverse areas, including urban, suburban, and rural 

areas. Grants are awarded for up to 5 years, with the option of one additional 2-year extension. 

Entities may receive only one grant during a grant competition.

The statute requires cost sharing: grantees must use non-Federal sources, in cash or in kind, to 

cover at least 25 percent of the project costs each year. The Secretary may waive or modify the 

cost-sharing requirement in cases of demonstrated financial hardship. Federal grant funds must 

be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used for such 

activities.

Under the antecedent School Leadership program, high-need LEAs, nonprofit organizations, 

and IHEs could receive grants to recruit and retain individuals to serve as principals in highneed LEAs by (1) providing financial incentives to aspiring new principals, (2) providing stipends 

to principals who mentor new principals, (3) carrying out professional development programs in 

instructional leadership and management, and (4) providing incentives that are appropriate for 

teachers or individuals from other fields who want to become principals and that are effective in 

retaining new principals. Approximately half of the funds requested for fiscal year 2017 would 

be used to pay continuation costs for the final year of School Leadership grants awarded in 

fiscal year 2013.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2012 .............................................................................$29,107

2013 ............................................................................... 27,584

2014 ............................................................................... 25,763

2015 ............................................................................... 16,368

2016 ...............................................................................16,368

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $30.0 million for the School Leader Recruitment and Support 

Program in fiscal year 2017, an increase of $13.6 million from the 2016 funding for the 

antecedent School Leadership program. The request includes appropriations language 

overriding the authorized funding level for this program. 

F-55
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

Effective principals are crucial to strengthening teaching and school communities. Second only 

to classroom instruction, school leadership is the most important school-based variable affecting 

student achievement.1

 Emerging research shows that effective leaders play a critical role in 

students’ academic success, especially in high-need schools, by creating cultures of high 

expectations and by recruiting and retaining highly effective teachers.2

 A school leader directly 

impacts the quality of instruction through hiring decisions of instructional staff and decisions 

about professional development activities.3

 Effective principals also provide instructional 

leadership in addition to carrying out administrative responsibilities.4

 Teachers cite a principal’s 

support and effectiveness as a leading factor that contributes to their decisions to remain in the 

profession.5

 Highly effective school leaders make teachers feel valued and allow them to focus 

solely on student learning, encouraging them to stay in the classroom.6

 Effective leaders also 

create a vision of academic success for all children in their schools and encourage other 

educators to take on leadership roles and responsibilities.

The Department has also begun to help build evidence around what successful principal 

preparation looks like. For example, the 2013 School Leadership program competition 

encouraged applicants to address the challenges of preparing and supporting principals through 

projects that would help expand the evidence base for high-quality principal preparation, 

professional development for principals, or both. In addition, the Department launched the 

Turnaround School Leaders Program (TSLP) in fiscal year 2014 using national activities funds 

under the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program. The TSLP provides grants to LEAs to 

help ensure that leaders of schools eligible for or receiving SIG funds possess the specialized 

skills needed to drive successful efforts to turn those schools around. Activities supported with 

School Leader Recruitment and Support funds will be complemented by work conducted under 

the proposed Teacher and Principal Pathways program, which at the request level would 

provide $35 million for competitive grants to IHEs and nonprofit organizations to support the 

creation or expansion of high-quality pathways that prepare participants to serve effectively as 

principals in high-need schools. Finally, the Department has begun an evaluation of the impact 

of support for principals on teacher retention, effectiveness of instructional staff, and student 

academic achievement.7

The Federal investment in principal preparation and support helps promote stronger 

recruitment, competitive selection, preparation, and placement of leaders for the critical role of 

principal, especially for high-need schools. In particular, high-poverty and high-minority schools 

are more likely to be led by principals who are weaker on various quality measures (including 

1 Leithwood, Kenneth, et al., “How Leadership Influences Student Learning” (2004). 2 Loeb, Susanna, et al., “Effective Schools: Teacher Hiring, Assignment, Development, and Retention,” Journal 

of Education Finance and Policy (2012). 3 Papa, Frank, et al., “Hiring Teachers in New York’s Public Schools: Can the Principal Make a Difference?” 

(2003). 4 Wallace Foundation, “The School Principal as Leader: Guiding Schools to Better Teaching and Learning” 

(2013). 5 Futernick, Ken, “A Possible Dream: Retaining California Teachers So All Students Can Learn,” California State 

University (2007). 6 Ikemoto, Gina, et al., New Leaders, “Playmakers: How great principals build and lead great teams of teachers” 

(2012). 7 “Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals,” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_principals.asp. 

F-56

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

leadership ratings from staff and years of experience) than those in lower poverty schools.1 

Strong principals are essential to the improvement of low-performing schools and are vital for 

schools to retain their strongest teachers.2

 The need for improved principal training programs 

also is demonstrated by evidence that many candidates who enter existing leadership training 

programs never use their credentials to become a principal or obtain other administrative 

positions.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Funding for new awards 0 0 $14,574

Number of new awards 0 0 5

Range of new awards NA NA $2,000−$5,000

Funding for continuation awards $16,286 $16,368 $15,076

Number of continuation awards 20 18 18

Range of continuation awards $208−$2,472 $214−$2,519 $216−$2,208

Peer review of new grant awards 0

0

$200

Evaluation $82 0 $150

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

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

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

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. The Department used this authority to pool $82 thousand 

in 2015 and may use the authority in 2016.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

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

1 Clotfelter, Charles, et al., “High-Poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers and Principals,” National 

Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) Working Paper No. 1 (2007); Horng, 

Eileen, et al., “Principal Preferences and the Unequal Distribution of Principals Across Schools,” CALDER Working 

Paper No. 36 (2009). 2 Schleicher, Andreas (Ed.), “Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century: Lessons 

from around the World,” OECD (2012).

F-57

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

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

this program.

The information provided is for the antecedent School Leadership program. The Department 

will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the new School Leader 

Recruitment and Support program during planning for the 2017 grant competition. 

Goal: To increase the number of new, certified principals and assistant principals and to 

improve the skills of current practicing principals and assistant principals, all serving in 

high-need schools in high-need LEAs.

Objective: To recruit, prepare, and support teachers and individuals from other fields to

become principals, including assistant principals, in high-need schools in high-need LEAs.

Measure: The percentage of participants who meet certification requirements to become a 

principal or assistant principal.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010 Cohort

Actual

2012 40% 58%

2013 50 68

2014 60 73

2015 70 58

2016

Measure: The percentage of participants who are certified and hired as a principal or assistant 

principal in a high-need local educational agency.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010 Cohort

Actual

2012 60% 71%

2013 70 65

2014 80 79

2015 90 59

2016

F-58
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

Measure: The percentage of participants certified through the funded project who are hired as 

a principal or assistant principal in a high-need LEA and who remain in that position for at least 

2 years.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2012 40 24%

2013 50 23

2014 60 78

2015 70 98

2016

Additional information: These measures track participants who are enrolled in projects 

designed to train and certify new principals and assistant principals. Grantees report data 

through annual performance reports. Participants generally take 18 to 24 months to attain 

certification, although this varies by grantee. Retention results are based on the number of 

individuals that were certified through the program and remained in the same position 2 years 

later. Program office staff will investigate the reasons for year-to-year variability in the data.

Objective: To train and support principals and assistant principals from schools in high-need 

LEAs in order to improve their skills and increase retention.

Measure: The percentage of principals and assistant principals from schools in high-need local 

educational agencies who participated in School Leadership-funded professional development 

activities and showed an increase in their pre-post scores on a standardized measure of 

principal skills.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2012 60% 51%

2013 70 53

2014 80 60

2015 90 44

2016

F-59
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

Measure: The percentage of principals and assistant principals from schools in high-need 

LEAs who participated in School Leadership-funded professional development activities and 

remained in their administrative position for at least 2 years.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2012 40% 100%

2013 50 100

2014 60 64

2015 70 90

2016

Additional information: These measures track participants who are enrolled in projects 

designed to support individuals currently serving as principals and assistant principals in highneed LEAs. Grantees report data through annual performance reports. Program office staff will 

investigate the reasons for year-to-year variability in the data.

New measures

The Department established two new measures as part of the 2013 grant competition: (1) the 

percentage of principals and assistant principals who complete the SLP-funded professional 

development program and whose schools demonstrate positive change, no change, or negative 

change based on pre- and post-school site measures, of which one measure must include, if 

available, student growth (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year); and (2) the 

percentage of program graduates who are rated “effective” or “highly effective” as measured by 

a State or local principal evaluation system, if available. Results for 2014 are expected in early 

spring 2016.

Other Performance Information

The Department began an impact evaluation of support for principals in 2014. The study will 

address key questions about the effectiveness of principal professional development programs 

and their ability to improve leadership skills and school quality, including:

• What are the professional development experiences of principals?

• What are the initial impacts on school climate and educator behaviors of providing principals 

structured and intensive professional development?

• What are the impacts on teacher retention, the effectiveness of instructional staff, and 

student achievement of providing principals with structured and intensive professional 

development?

The study team will randomly assign elementary schools within approximately 10 districts to a 

treatment or control group. Treatment group principals will be offered intensive professional 

development provided by the University of Washington's Center for Educational Leadership 

F-60
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

(CEL) during the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 school years. CEL was competitively selected to 

provide the professional development for this study, which involves a heavy emphasis on 

instructional leadership activities such as conducting school walkthroughs and classroom 

observations with constructive feedback to facilitate teacher growth focused on improving 

student achievement. Control group principals will receive supports normally offered by the 

district. Data collection will include information about the professional development delivered 

and experienced by the participating principals; teacher and principal surveys and periodic logs 

of principal daily activities to document intermediate outcomes such as principal behaviors and 

school climate; and administrative records to document student and teacher outcomes. The 

first report is scheduled to be released in the spring of 2018.

F-61
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

STEM master teacher corps

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title II, Part B, Subpart 4, 

Section 2245)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization:1

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

0 $10,000 +$10,000

1 A total of $468,881 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Part B,

15.4 percent is available for Subpart 4, of which up to 2 percent may be reserved for the STEM Master Teacher 

Corps.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The STEM Master Teacher Corps program, newly authorized by the Every Student Succeeds 

Act of 2015 (ESSA), which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA), supports efforts to develop statewide master teacher programs in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (including computer science) and to improve the 

quality of STEM professional development programs across a State.

The program would make competitive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) to develop 

STEM Master Teacher Corps, which the statute defines as “a State-led effort to elevate the 

status of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching profession by 

recognizing, rewarding, attracting, and retaining outstanding science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics teachers, particularly in high-need and rural schools.” States would be 

required to identify candidates for the corps based on content knowledge, pedagogical 

knowledge, and success in teaching, and to offer master teachers opportunities to (1) work 

together in scholarly communities, (2) participate in and lead high-quality professional 

development, and (3) receive additional compensation for their contributions to improved 

teaching and learning in STEM fields.

The program also supports grants to SEAs, or non-profit organizations in partnership with SEAs, 

to support the implementation, replication, or expansion of effective STEM professional 

development programs in schools through collaboration with school administrators, principals, 

and STEM educators.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $10 million in first-time funding for the newly authorized STEM 

Master Teacher Corps program. The request includes appropriations language specifying the 

F-62
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

STEM master teacher corps

funding level for this program. Funds would be used to support grants to States for (1) the 

creation and management of statewide STEM Master Teacher Corps and (2) connecting 

different statewide corps into a community of practice.

This new program responds to the President’s July 2012 call to create a national STEM Master 

Teacher Corps that would enlist America’s best and brightest science and math teachers to 

improve STEM education. The President’s plan envisioned recognizing and rewarding some of 

our most accomplished STEM educators by offering them membership in a national community 

of talented STEM educators, opportunities to serve as instructional leaders in their schools and 

communities, and additional pay in exchange for their leadership and service.

The 2017 request would help States create leadership pathways for excellent STEM educators 

to improve STEM teaching and learning. Corps members would build their capacity to be 

leaders in the field and enhance the professional learning of other STEM teachers; identify and

share promising practices in their schools, districts, and States; and help students excel in 

STEM subjects while taking on coaching and mentorship roles in their schools and 

communities.

There remain large disparities in student access and engagement in STEM courses, with only 

half of high schools nationwide offering calculus and only 63 percent offering physics. Onequarter of the high schools with the highest percentages of African-American and Latino 

students do not offer Algebra II and a third of these schools do not offer chemistry. The 

Department would give priority in making awards under both types of activities for projects that 

emphasize reducing or eliminating gaps in access to high-quality STEM courses and instruction 

for historically underserved groups such as girls, minorities, low-income students, and students 

with disabilities. 

We also would emphasize the recruitment of STEM master teachers that are selected based on 

demonstrated effectiveness in teaching one or more STEM subjects, their content knowledge in 

such subjects, and their demonstrated leadership potential to advance the STEM teaching 

profession and to work with novice STEM educators through mentoring and related activities. 

The program would complement the Administration’s call for preparing 100,000 excellent STEM 

teachers by helping new STEM teachers to find mentors and stay in the profession and to 

become mentors themselves over time. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017

Amount for new awards $9,850

Number of awards 15–20

Peer review of new award applications $100

Evaluation 50

______________

F-63
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

STEM master teacher corps

NOTE: The ESEA as amended by the ESSA authorizes the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved for 

evaluation under section 8601 and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Some or all of the funds 

that may be reserved from the STEM Master Teacher Corps program may be used under the pooled evaluation 

authority in fiscal year 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

activities that receive support under this program, based in part on the targets and goals 

established by grantees. The development of these measures would build on our experience in 

creating performance measures for other programs, and the Department would also seek to 

align program measures for STEM Master Teacher Corps grants with measures for related 

STEM and professional development programs.

F-64
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teach to lead

(proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

BudgetAuthority:

2016 2017 Change

0 $10,000 +$10,000

1 The program would be authorized through appropriations language in 2017.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Teachers, because of their position in the classroom, often see important opportunities to 

improve student learning most directly and thus have a unique perspective from which to create 

practical solutions to help students succeed. Too often, though, they are not involved in the 

design or implementation of education initiatives and are not the recipients of the supporting 

grant funding. Empowering teachers to lead initiatives to improve student outcomes brings their 

knowledge, expertise, and passion directly to bear on the many challenges confronting our 

education system, while demonstrating a trust and respect for teachers’ ideas that they deserve.

This proposal is borne out of the success of the Administration’s Teach to Lead initiative, which 

has already engaged more than 3,000 teachers from across the country and supported over 

170 teacher-designed and teacher-led action plans for improvements at the school, district, 

State, and national level. Teachers have reacted positively to the opportunity to meaningfully 

interact with systems leaders and policymakers, and to put their expertise to work in designing 

and implementing projects with the potential to improve student outcomes in their own schools, 

districts, States, and beyond. However, while the Teach to Lead initiative has supported 

teachers in developing and advocating for their ideas, it has not provided funding to help 

implement the action plans developed. The fiscal year 2017 appropriation would be unique in 

directing financial assistance to teachers to support the development, implementation, 

expansion, and dissemination of teacher-led projects that empower teachers to lead beyond the 

classroom. These projects would address issues identified by educators, based on the specific 

context, barriers, and opportunities where they work, which might include:

• Increasing student engagement through personalized learning, including technologyenabled instruction;

• Strengthening support for educators, including support for effective implementation of 

challenging, State-determined standards to prepare students to be ready for college and 

careers;

F-65
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teach to lead

• Improving community engagement, school climate, and student services;

• Improving data collection and analysis for data-driven instruction and continuous 

improvement; and

• Expanding students’ access to effective instruction.

Funds would support one award to a nonprofit organization that, in turn, would design and 

implement a national competition to make one-time, 3-year grants to individual teachers, teams 

of teachers, or teachers and school leaders to develop and implement projects to improve 

student achievement outcomes. Teachers also would be encouraged to partner with school and 

district leaders, nonprofit organizations, and other stakeholders, and to propose ideas with a 

likelihood of being adopted by their schools, districts, and States. Teach to Lead funding would 

provide “seed money” to initiate work that could be continued, expanded, and evaluated with 

on-going funding streams.

Applicants would need to demonstrate capacity to operate a national program that engages 

teachers directly, an ability to manage fiscal aspects of multiple grants to different entities, and 

an understanding of the systems and structures that interact with educational and instructional 

issues facing today’s students. The grantee would be required to give priority to teacher-led 

projects (1) that are designed to improve student outcomes for all students in high-need schools 

or that target the educational needs of low-achieving students; (2) for which there is evidence of 

effectiveness or, at a minimum, that are supported by a logic model; and (3) with commitments 

from their districts and State to continue support for successful projects after the grant ends, 

including commitments of funding from ESEA Title II Supporting Effective Instruction State 

Grants or other educational funding sources. Teachers, along with an LEA or a nonprofit which 

would serve as the fiscal agent, would apply to the grantee for subgrants. 

The grantee would conduct peer review of project applications, monitor project implementation, 

and provide technical assistance to help ensure effective project implementation and 

accountability for the use of Federal funds. In addition, the grantee would create a community 

of practice for project teams to interact with each other and with experts in the field. This 

community would help the project teams solve ongoing problems of instructional practice and 

build a network of advocates for teacher leadership across the country.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Department requests $10 million for Teach to Lead, which would be authorized through 

appropriations language as a new national activity under Title II, Part B of the ESEA. This 

proposal would build on the initial success of teacher leadership projects executed through the 

ongoing Teach to Lead initiative and provide direct support for teacher-designed, teacher-led 

projects implementing innovative strategies with the potential for wider impact on improving 

student outcomes. The Teach to Lead program would be the first Federal program of its kind to 

provide direct subgrant support to teachers in order to support implementation of teachers’ 

ideas in improving student learning and school success.

F-66
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teach to lead

Teachers know the importance of being involved in decisions that affect what happens in their

schools and their profession, without leaving the classroom. According to a recent poll, 

69 percent of teachers feel their voices are heard in their school, but only one-third feel heard in 

their district, 5 percent in their State, and 2 percent at the national level.1

 This failure to 

leverage teachers' expertise has a negative impact on teacher engagement in education 

reforms and misses a critical opportunity for leaders and policymakers to draw on knowledge 

from the classroom that can help them address critical education needs and challenges.

Experience from the ongoing Teach to Lead initiative suggests that the Administration’s 

proposal would contribute to:

• Supporting teacher leaders in leading work to ensure students meet new college and 

career-ready standards;

• Contribute to teacher retention by meaningfully engaging with educators as professionals 

and experts;

• Catalyzing the teacher leadership movement across the country;

• Supporting teacher-led solutions for reducing the achievement gap;

• Identifying diverse teacher and principal leaders; and

• Most importantly, executing promising, teacher-led plans for improving teaching and 

learning.

The Department will examine strategies for evaluating selected Teach to Lead projects, with an 

emphasis on identifying and disseminating effective practices that might be taken to scale by 

leveraging other ESEA formula grant funds.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017

Funding for new awards $9,900

Number of new awards 1

Peer review of new award applications $100

1 Scholastic and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, “Primary Sources: America’s Teachers on Teaching in an 

Era of Change” (2013).

F-67

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teach to lead

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

activities that receive support under this program. The development of these measures would 

build on our experience in creating performance measures for other programs, and the 

Department would also seek to align program measures for Teach to Lead with measures for 

related programs.

F-68
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $270,000

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$333,172 $350,000 +$16,828

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, 

particularly those living in poverty or at-risk for educational failure.

Through Charter Schools Grants, the Department supports the startup, replication, and 

expansion of 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. Charter Schools Grants have supported over 40 percent of all charter 

schools in operation as of the 2013–14 school year, serving over 1 million students nationwide

(see http://innovation.ed.gov/2015/12/23/a-commitment-to-transparency-learning-more-aboutthe-charter-schools-program). 

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) maintains the focus of Charter School Grants 

on making high-quality school options available to students in need and strengthens efforts to 

hold charter schools accountable for performance. Among other things, the ESSA requires the 

Department to give priority for grant awards 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.

GRANTS FOR THE STARTUP 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), as amended by the 

ESSA, authorizes the Department to make competitive State Entity grants to State educational 

agencies (SEAs), State charter school boards, State governors, and statewide charter school 

support organizations. Recipients of these grants—which replace the grants to SEAs in the 

previous authorization of the ESEA—must use not less than 90 percent of grant funds to make 

F-69
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

subgrants to charter school developers to enable them to start up 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 also may use subgrant funds for activities 

such as providing professional development, acquiring equipment and supplies, engaging the 

community, and developing student transportation systems.

The Department must use 65 percent of the annual program appropriation to support State 

Entity grants, make at least 3 new such grants each year, and fully provide the first 2 years of 

each grant (which may be for a period of up to 5 years) with the initial award. In addition to the 

priorities mentioned above, the Department must give priority for grants 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 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. Under section 4305(a)(2) of the reauthorized 

ESEA, the Department must reserve not more than 2.025 percent of the annual program 

appropriation to support these grants, which are awarded to start up new charter schools or 

replicate or expand high-quality charter schools under the same terms and conditions as for 

State Entity grants. The Department may also make Developer grants with any State Entity 

grant funds that remain after making continuation awards and the required new awards 

described above but are insufficient to support an additional new State Entity award.

Replication and Expansion Grants

The Department must also reserve up to 18 percent of program funds to make competitive 

grants to nonprofit CMOs grants to replicate and expand high-quality charter schools, as 

authorized under section 4305(b) of the amended statute. Priority for these awards which, 

before enactment of the ESSA were authorized through appropriations language, 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 ESEA as amended; 

(3) propose to replicate or expand schools serving high school students; or (4) propose to 

operate schools that focus on dropout prevention and recovery. As with Developer grants, 

Replication and Expansion grants are awarded under the same terms and conditions as for 

State Entity grants, including the requirement that the schools to be replicated or expanded 

have demonstrated success in increasing student achievement and (where applicable) 

F-70
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

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 of the amended ESEA reauthorizes two programs through which the Department 

makes grants to improve charter schools’ access to high-quality facilities: Credit Enhancement 

for Charter School Facilities and State Facilities Incentive grants. Under Credit Enhancement 

for Charter School Facilities, the Department makes annual competitive 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 loans or bond financing. The competitive 5-year State Facilities 

Incentive grants help States operate per-pupil aid programs that assist charter schools with 

facility costs, of which States pay an increasing share over the grant period. The Department 

must reserve 12.5 percent of the Charter Schools Grants appropriation for the facilities grants, 

of which not less than 50 percent (or 6.25 percent of the total appropriation) must be used for 

Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities.

NATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Under section 4305(a)(3) of the amended ESEA, the Department must use at least 

2.475 percent of the program appropriation to provide technical assistance to State entities in 

awarding subgrants and to recipients of facilities grants, disseminate best practices regarding 

charter schools, and evaluating the impact of Charter Schools Grants, including on student 

achievement.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnotes

2012...........................................................254,836 1

2013...........................................................241,507

2014...........................................................248,172

2015...........................................................253,172

2016...........................................................333,172

1 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2012 of $200 thousand from Charter Schools Grants to Advanced 

Placement.

F-71
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $350 million for Charter Schools Grants for fiscal year 2017, an 

increase of $16.8 million over the fiscal year 2016 level (and a total increase of $96.8 million 

above the fiscal year 2015 level). The proposed increase reflects the Administration’s 

commitment to build on this program’s demonstrated success in supporting effective school 

models and embraces the focus under the ESSA on strengthening charter school authorizing 

and oversight practices and ensuring access to high-quality schools for historically underserved 

student groups. The request includes appropriations language overriding the authorized fiscal 

year 2017 funding level of $270 million. 

In addition, the request includes appropriations language to override the ESSA’s within-program 

funding allocations and allow the Department to use funds as described below. The requested 

language would also eliminate the requirement to make 3 new, partially frontloaded State Entity 

grants, thereby enabling the Department to make grant award decisions based on established 

parameters, including the quality (as assessed using statutory selection criteria) and quantity of 

applications received. Lastly, the requested appropriations language would expand the national 

activities authority to include support for emerging partnerships between charter schools and 

LEAs with strong potential to help improve academic outcomes. 

At the request level, funds would be allocated as follows:

• Up to $100 million for Replication and Expansion grants, the same authority as in fiscal year

2016 and $37 million above the maximum amount of funds that may be used for these 

grants under the ESSA at the request level. These grants provide crucial support for the 

Administration’s goal of increasing the number of high-quality educational options available 

for parents and students. Consistent with the new statutory priorities for these grants, the 

Department would target funding to CMOs that will operate schools with racially and 

socioeconomically diverse student bodies and have had success in working with chronically 

low-performing schools. These priorities would complement the Administration’s broader 

efforts for improving outcomes for low-income students through increased school 

integration, including the Stronger Together Grants proposal, which supports 

comprehensive school socioeconomic integration efforts by local educational agencies and 

their partners.

• Not less than $16 million for Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities grants, the 

same authority as in fiscal year 2016 and $5.9 million below the minimum amount that must 

be used for these grants under the ESSA at the request level.

• Up to $10 million for State Facilities Incentive grants, the same authority as in fiscal year 

2016 and $11.9 million below the maximum amount that may be used for these grants under 

the ESSA at the request level. Funds would be used to continue awards initially made in 

fiscal year 2014.

• Not less than $16 million for national activities, an increase of $5 million over the minimum 

amount in fiscal year 2016 and $7.3 million above the minimum amount that must be used 

F-72
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

for these activities under the ESSA at the request level. The increase above fiscal year 

2016 would be used to support a pilot demonstration authority to identify and validate 

collaborative practices between charter schools and LEAs that can improve teacher support 

and student academic outcomes for targeted populations, including economically 

disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and English Learners. This new 

partnership program would build upon the success of the Replication and Expansion grants 

by enabling high-performing CMOs and LEAs to develop and exchange best practices in 

areas such as leadership training and human capital development and to disseminate 

information on these practices broadly to the field. Funds would support the first year of 

approximately 5 new grants which could be used, in particular, to promote the transfer to

low-performing schools of high-performing charter schools’ instructional methods and school 

climate policies. 

Consistent with the authority provided in the ESSA, the Department would use fiscal year 

2017 funds to continue grants made under the previous authorization of the ESEA under the 

terms of those awards.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 footnote2016 footnote2017 footnote

State Entity grants

State Entity grants: Amount for new awards $125,084 $173,533 $27,794

State Entity grants: Amount for continuation awards 28,886 12,772 172,459

Developer grants

Devel oper grants: Amount for new awards 1,201 4,000 4,000

Devel oper grants: Amount for continuation awards 4,932 3,651 3,347

Replication and Expansion grants

Replicati on and Expansion grants: Amount for new awards 32,409 66,770 56,622

Replicati on and Expansion grants: Amount for continuation awards 25,444 33,230 43,378

Credit Enhancement for Charter 

Facilities grants

 ment for C harter Faciliti es grants: Amount for new awards 14,070 16,000 16,000

State Facilities Incentive grants

tate F acilities Incenti ve grants: Amount for continuation awards 9,000 10,000 10,000

Peer review of new award applications 359 400 400

F-73
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

Output Measures 2015 footnote2016 footnote2017 footnote

National activities 10,521 11,150 14,250

Pooled evaluation authority 1,266 1 1,666 1 1,750 1

______________

1 The fiscal year 2015 and 2016 appropriations acts authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

under section 9601 of the ESEA (as in effect prior to enactment of the ESSA) and use those pooled funds to evaluate 

any ESEA program. This authority will continue in fiscal year 2017 under section 8601(c) of the ESEA as 

reauthorized by the ESSA. Some or all of the funds that may be reserved from Charter Schools Grants may be used 

under the pooled evaluation authority in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

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

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

this program.

Goal: To support the creation of a large number of high-quality charter schools.

Objective: To encourage the development of a large number of high-quality charter schools 

that are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for 

enabling students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all 

students.

Measure: The number of States that have charter school legislation (including the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico). 

Year Target Actual

2012 44 43

2013 44 43

2014 44 43

2015 44 44

2016 44

2017 44

Additional information: In March 2015, Alabama became the 44th State (including the District 

of Columbia and Puerto Rico) to enact charter school legislation. The remaining States without 

charter school laws are mainly rural States (e.g., South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia). 

F-74
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

Measure: The number of charter schools in operation around the Nation.

Year Target Actual

2012 6,130 5,741

2013 6,600 6,081

2014 7,070 6,463

2015 7,540

2016 8,010

2017 8,480

Additional information: Data on the number of charter schools in operation are provided 

annually by SEAs and are verified by the Department. The 2015 data for this measure are 

expected to be available in early spring 2016.

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above proficient on State assessments in reading.

Year Target Actual

2012 89.7% 68.6%

2013 94.8 64.2

2014 69.2 63.4

2015 74.2

2016 79.2

2017 84.2

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade students in charter schools who are achieving at or 

above proficient on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2012 89.0% 65.1%

2013 94.5 61.4

2014 66.4 58.9

2015 71.4

2016 76.4

2017 81.4

F-75
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above proficient on State assessments in reading.

Year Target Actual

2012 89.9% 68.7%

2013 94.9 66.6

2014 71.6 67.1

2015 76.6

2016 81.6

2017 86.6

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade students in charter schools who are achieving at or 

above proficient on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2012 86.1% 56.5%

2013 93.1 53.7

2014 58.7 54.2

2015 63.7

2016 68.7

2017 73.7

Additional information: Performance targets for these measures were established based on 

the No Child Left Behind goal of 100 percent student proficiency in reading and mathematics by 

2014. The Department has revised the targets for 2014 and future years based on actual 

performance in 2013. 

Data for these measures are collected through grantee annual performance reports. The 

decrease in the percentage of fourth-grade students scoring at or above proficiency in 2013 and 

2014 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. The 2015 data for these measures are expected to be 

available in early summer 2016.

Efficiency Measures

Measure: The ratio of funds leveraged by States for charter facilities to funds awarded by the 

Department under the State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grant Program.

Year 2009 Cohort Target 2009 Cohort Actual

2012 4.2 : 1 3.1 : 1

2013 5.8 : 1 3.4 : 1

2014 6.3 : 1 6.5 : 1

Additional information: This efficiency measure assesses the State Facilities Incentive grants 

by examining the ratio of funds leveraged by grantees to funds awarded by the Department. 

F-76
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

The leveraging ratio is the total funds available (the Federal grant and the State match) divided 

by the Federal grant for a given year. The 2015 data for this measure for the 2014 cohort are 

expected to be available in early spring 2016. The Department will establish targets for this 

measure for the 2014 cohort (for 2016 and future years using 2015 actual data as the baseline) 

at a later date.

The Department has also developed a measure to assess the cost efficiency, across States, of 

the Federal investment in supporting charter school start-ups. The measure is defined as the 

Federal cost per student of launching a successful school (defined as a school in operation for 

3 or more years). Data for 2012 show an average cost of $1,010, for 2013 an average cost of 

$1,056, and for 2014 an average cost of $1,100. Data for this measure, collected through 

grantee annual performance reports, assist the Department in determining what constitutes a 

reasonable cost per student for different types of charter schools. 

Other Performance Information

2010 Department Evaluation

In 2010, the Department released findings from its first rigorous impact evaluation of charter 

schools, which addressed the effects of charter school strategies on student achievement and 

satisfaction and on parent satisfaction. Researchers also examined school factors that affect 

student outcomes (e.g., school or class size, proportion of certified teachers) and the extent to 

which policy conditions and autonomy in school operation influence effectiveness. Thirty-six 

charter middle schools across 15 States participated in this random assignment study. The 

researchers followed two treatment groups of students and a control group for two consecutive 

grade levels and also surveyed students, parents, and principals. 

The evaluation (available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/index.asp) showed that the 

impact of charter middle schools on student achievement varied across participating schools, 

with schools that served more low-income or low-achieving students showing statistically 

significant positive effects in mathematics and no significant effects in reading, and with schools 

that served more advantaged students showing significant negative effects in both subjects. 

The evaluation also examined whether achievement impacts were associated with certain 

school characteristics and found some positive impacts for charter schools with comparatively 

longer hours of operation or with comparatively higher revenue per student, but these findings 

were not statistically significant once the researchers controlled for school and student 

characteristics. Lastly, the evaluation found no significant relationship between charter school 

policies and student achievement. 

2013 CREDO Evaluations

The “National Charter School Study 2013,” a study by researchers at Stanford University’s 

Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) that updates and expands 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 

F-77
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

attended a traditional public school. The researchers found that 29 percent of charter schools in 

the sample demonstrated significantly higher growth in mathematics achievement and 

25 percent demonstrated significantly higher growth in reading compared to traditional public

schools in the sample while 31 percent of charter schools in the sample posted mathematics 

gains and 19 percent posted reading gains that were significantly below what those students 

would have seen if enrolled in a traditional public school. Overall, the students in 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 (available at http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html) also showed 

that, in general, charter schools have had different effects on students of different family 

backgrounds. For students from low-income families, African-American students, or 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.

In January 2013, CREDO also released findings from “Charter School Growth and Replication,” 

which examines, in charter schools across 25 States, changes in school performance in the 

years following a school’s opening and the implications of these changes for school replication. 

The study (also available at http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html) 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. 

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 Report (available at 

http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/index.php) 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 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 

F-78
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

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.

F-79
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $94,000

Budget Authority: 

2016

2017

Request Change

$96,647 $115,000 +$18,353

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Sixty years after Brown v. Board of Education, data show that many schools and communities 

continue to suffer from the vestiges of segregation, and that many of our Nation’s largest school 

districts remain starkly segregated along racial lines. The Magnet Schools Assistance Program, 

previously authorized under Title V, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) and reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), provides Federal 

resources to assist eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) in combating segregation. The 

ESSA amended the program to increase racial integration by taking into account socioeconomic 

diversity and to allow funds to be used for transportation, provided the costs do not consume a 

significant portion of the grant award and that the transportation strategy is sustainable following 

the end of the grant period.

Grantees establish and operate magnet schools that are part of a court-ordered, agencyordered, or federally approved voluntary desegregation plan. 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. By creating special curricula or instructional offerings that appeal to parents 

and students from different socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds, a magnet school 

can attract a diverse student body and provide greater opportunities for desegregation efforts to 

succeed.

Under the program as reauthorized by the ESSA, grantees receive awards for up to 5 years and 

may not receive more than $15 million over the course of the grant. Funds must be used for 

activities intended to 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. Expenditures for planning are limited to no 

more than 50 percent of a grant in the first year and 15 percent in the second and third years.

By statute, the Department gives priority for grants to applicants that: demonstrate the greatest 

need for assistance; 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 

F-80
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

achievement and reducing racial isolation; and use methods other than academic examinations 

(such as a lottery) to admit students. The Department also gives priority to applicants that 

propose to increase racial integration by designing and implementing magnet school programs 

that would increase socioeconomic diversity. This newly authorized statutory priority is 

consistent with the Administration’s broader efforts to improve student outcomes through 

increased socioeconomic diversity in our public schools. In addition, applicants that did not 

receive a grant the previous fiscal year receive priority for any funds appropriated above 

$75 million. The Department has also given priority in recent competitions to applicants 

proposing projects that promote science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.

The Department may use up to 1 percent of funds for providing technical assistance and 

disseminating best practices with respect to funded magnet school programs.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2012 ........................................................$96,7051

2013 ..........................................................91,647

2014 ..........................................................91,647

2015 ..........................................................91,647

2016 ..........................................................96,647

1 Reflects a reprogramming of $2,906 thousand from Magnet Schools Assistance to Advanced Placement.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $115 million for Magnet Schools Assistance for fiscal year 2017, 

an $18.4 million increase over the fiscal year 2016 level. The request includes appropriations 

language that would override the authorization level for this program. The proposed increase

would support a new cohort of awards under a program strengthened by the ESSA, through 

which the Administration would continue to support efforts to reverse the negative educational 

effects of racial isolation and concentrated poverty. Our Nation is at a critical nexus of 

increasing income inequality and racial and socioeconomic segregation, and these challenges 

are fully reflected in our public schools. As of 2012, one quarter of our students attend schools 

where more than 75 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and most 

high-poverty schools are located in high-poverty school districts. The Administration believes 

that one key strategy to reduce concentrated poverty and racial isolation is to promote

meaningful socioeconomic integration through the creation of schools capable of attracting 

students from diverse backgrounds, including across district boundary lines. The reauthorized

Magnet Schools Assistance program provides authority to test this strategy and the increased 

funding requested for fiscal year 2017 would be used for a new competition giving priority to 

applicants proposing to make socioeconomic diversity a central factor in their efforts to increase 

racial integration. 

The requested increase for Magnet Schools Assistance would complement the proposed 

F-81
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

Stronger Together program, a competitive grant program through which the Administration 

would support efforts by school districts to improve socioeconomic diversity in schools that 

serve students in areas of concentrated poverty. Stronger Together funds would support 

comprehensive socioeconomic integration strategies such as: redrawing or reforming school 

boundary and assignment policies to establish open or controlled school-choice zones spanning 

a variety of neighborhoods across traditional school-district lines; revising or creating new 

incentives around school feeder patterns; and creating or expanding schools capable of 

attracting students from diverse backgrounds, such as charter and magnet schools.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Amount of awards $89,814 $94,404 $113,650

Number of new awards 0 22–30 5–6

Number of continuation awards 28 1 22–30

Range of awards 757–4,000 3,000–4,000 2,500

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 310 200

National activities 1,833 1,933 1,150

_______________

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

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

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

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

Schools Assistance program under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

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

this program. 

The 2015 data for these measures for the 2013 cohort are expected to be available in spring

2016.

F-82
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

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 whose student enrollment 

reduces, eliminates, or prevents minority-group isolation.

Year 2010 Cohort

Target

2010 Cohort

Actual

2013 Cohort

Target

2013 Cohort

Actual

2012 90.1% 46.4%

2013 95.0 38.4

2014 100.0% 44.1%

2015

2016

Additional information: In 2010, the Department published interim final regulations for the 

program that provide LEAs with greater flexibility in demonstrating that their magnet or feeder 

schools will eliminate, reduce, or prevent racial group isolation and that their voluntary 

desegregation plans are adequate under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 

The new measure is calculated by adding the number of schools that met individually 

determined objectives (counted as 1) and the number of schools that partially met objectives 

(counted as 0.5) and dividing by the total number of schools in the cohort. (A school is 

considered to have partially met its objectives by having met objectives for 1 of 2 identified 

isolated minority groups.) In 2014, of the 111 schools in the 2013 cohort, 46 met objectives and 

6 partially met objectives. The Department has not established targets for this measure for 

2015 and future years.

F-83
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

Objective: Magnet school students meet their State's academic achievement standards.

Measure: Percentage of students in magnet schools receiving assistance who score proficient 

or above on State assessments in reading/language arts.

Year 2010 Cohort

Target

2010 Cohort

Actual

2013 Cohort

Target

2013 Cohort

Actual

2012 92.2% 54.5%

2013 96.0 53.1

2014 100.0% 48.9%

2015

2016

Measure: Percentage of students in magnet schools receiving assistance who score proficient 

or above on State assessments in mathematics.

Year 2010 Cohort 

Target

2010 Cohort 

Actual

2013 Cohort

Target

2013 Cohort

Actual

2012 92.3% 54.3%

2013 96.1 50.2

2014 100.0% 41.8%

2015

2016

Additional information: Targets for these measures are based on the former ESEA goal of all 

students being proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. The Department has not 

established targets for this measure for 2015 and future years, and will consider current law 

when setting targets beginning with fiscal year 2017.

Data are reported for this measure for 2014 for 66 of the 111 schools in the 2013 cohort,

including 24,616 students who participated in State reading/language assessments and 

22,778 students who participated in State mathematics assessments. The decrease in the 

percentage of students scoring at or above proficiency in 2013 and 2014 can be explained, in 

part, by States’ transition in those years to more rigorous assessments. The percentages of 

students scoring proficient or above on reading/language arts assessments for 2014, by major 

racial/ethnic group, are as follows: 10.5 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students, 

45.0 percent of Asian students, 41.3 percent of Black/African-American students, 45.3 percent 

of Hispanic/Latino students, 36.8 percent of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students, 

and 68.3 percent of White students. The percentages for mathematics assessments are: 

11.5 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students, 60.9 percent of Asian students, 

34.3 percent of Black/African-American students, 37.0 percent of Hispanic/Latino students, 

31.6 percent of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students, and 60.6 percent of White 

students.

The remaining performance measures focus on sustainability and examine the percentages of 

magnet schools that remain in operation and that make adequate yearly progress (AYP) 3 years 

after Federal funding ends. Analysis of the sustainability data for the 2007 cohort found that 

F-84
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

91 percent of the 175 magnet schools that received funding remained in operation in the 

2012–2013 school year and that, of the 62 schools that remained in operation and for which 

data were available, 21 percent made AYP, a low result that may be attributed in part to the 

increasingly high proficiency targets associated with AYP under past law.

Efficiency Measure

The Department has developed a measure to assess the efficiency of Federal investments in 

supporting magnet schools. The measure is defined as the Federal cost per student in a 

magnet school receiving assistance. Data for the 2010 cohort show an average per-student 

cost of $958 in 2012 and $840 in 2013, and for the 2013 cohort an average per-student cost of 

$767 in 2014.

F-85
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Stronger together grants

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

0 $120,000 +$120,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

America's schools are becoming increasingly segregated by socioeconomic status. Onequarter of our Nation’s public school students attend schools in which more than 75 percent of 

students are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch; in our cities, nearly half of all students 

attend these high-poverty schools. The link between poverty and negative educational 

outcomes has long been demonstrated through both research and experience and was a key 

factor behind the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provided 

funds to States and school districts to help schools compensate for the disadvantages of 

poverty faced by millions of American schoolchildren and their families. Research also 

increasingly suggests that socioeconomic school diversity matters: States with more 

socioeconomic segregation in schools tend to have larger achievement gaps between low- and 

higher-income students,1 and socioeconomically diverse schools can lead to improved 

outcomes for disadvantaged students.2

Seeking to capitalize on the promising benefits of socioeconomic diversity, the proposed 

Stronger Together Grants program would support voluntary community efforts to develop and 

implement comprehensive strategies to address the effects of concentrated poverty by

increasing school socioeconomic diversity in preschool through grade 12. The Department 

would make competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs), alone or in consortia, that 

have significant achievement gaps and socioeconomic segregation within or across districts. 

Educational service agencies or other regional educational authorities serving such LEAs may 

also apply for grants. Funds would support separate grants for strategy planning and for 

implementation.

Stronger Together Grants would require applicants to demonstrate strong family and community 

involvement in their plans and would provide resources for communities to pursue locally 

developed strategies such as: the voluntary inter-district transfer of students; the use of 

weighted lotteries or student-assignment policies that consider the socioeconomic status of 

1 Mantil, Ann, Anne G. Perkins, and Stephanie Aberger. "The Challenge of High-Poverty Schools: How Feasible 

Is Socioeconomic School Integration?." The Future of School Integration (2012): 155-222. 2 Schwartz, Heather. “Housing policy is school policy: Economically integrative housing promotes academic 

success in Montgomery County, Maryland.” The Future of School Integration (2012): 27-65.

F-86

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Stronger together grants

students; the development of new or upgraded schools; the revision of school boundaries, 

attendance zones, or feeder patterns; and the formal merger of or coordination among multiple 

jurisdictions in order to pool resources, provide transportation, and expand public school 

options. While the program would promote the use of evidence-based strategies, applicants 

would have flexibility to develop and implement socioeconomic integration plans that meet 

locally determined needs and circumstances.

Stronger Together program funds would support two types of grants: 1-year planning grants 

that enable grantees to conduct activities including intensive public engagement and 

consultation to develop or refine a plan for increasing socioeconomic diversity in their schools; 

and, for applicants with well-designed plans, implementation grants for a period of up to 5 years. 

Grantees would be encouraged to partner with the local housing authority or local transportation 

authority and could partner with other entities, such as community-based organizations, 

institutions of higher education, early learning providers, and charter management organizations 

to support implementation. The Department could prioritize projects that are inter-district or 

statewide, that propose to take to scale or replicate models or practices with demonstrated 

success in improving socioeconomic diversity, or that include partnerships with entities that 

have a record of success in improving student outcomes by increasing school student-body 

diversity.

Planning Grants

Planning grants would support a rigorous process that includes research and analysis, 

community engagement, the development of options and, ultimately, an implementation plan. 

Required activities for planning grantees would include: (1) developing and implementing a 

robust family and community engagement plan, including, where feasible, public hearings or 

other open forums that would precede and inform the development of a formal strategy to 

improve socioeconomic diversity; (2) completing a comprehensive assessment of the economic 

stratification of public school students within the area and an analysis of the location and 

capacity of school facilities and the adequacy of local or regional transportation infrastructure in 

the area; (3) developing options for improving socioeconomic diversity, including timelines and 

cost estimates; (4) developing an implementation plan based on community preferences among 

those options; (5) building the capacity to collect and analyze data that provide information for 

transparency, continuous improvement, and evaluation; and (6) participating in a community of 

practice with other grantees, including those receiving implementation grants. 

Implementation Grants

To be eligible to receive an award, an applicant for an implementation grant must submit a 

high-quality plan that includes: (1) a comprehensive set of strategies designed to improve 

academic outcomes for all students, particularly low-income students, by increasing 

socioeconomic integration in schools; (2) evidence of strong family and community support for 

these strategies, including that the applicant has engaged in meaningful family and community 

outreach activities; (3) ambitious but achievable goals to increase socioeconomic diversity over 

the course of the grant period; (4) collection and analysis of data to provide transparency and 

support continuous improvement; and (5) a rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of the 

proposed project. In establishing goals to increase socioeconomic diversity, applicants would 

F-87
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Stronger together grants

have flexibility to determine the income measures to be used, which may include eligibility for 

free or reduced-priced lunch under the National Lunch School Act. Grantees could also choose 

to pursue or initiate a sustainable transportation plan for bringing students to and from schools. 

Grantees could use funds for such activities as: conducting robust community outreach and 

family engagement activities; revising school boundary and assignment policies to establish 

open or controlled school-choice zones spanning a variety of neighborhoods across traditional 

school-district lines; revising school feeder patterns; creating or expanding schools capable of 

attracting students from diverse backgrounds (including charter and magnet schools);

restructuring existing schools, such as through grade reconfiguration, to promote inclusive 

environments and attract a diverse group of students and families; promoting voluntary public 

school choice policies, which may include financial and other incentives for families, that have 

the effect of diversifying the socioeconomic composition of the grantee’s schools; recruiting, 

hiring, and training additional teachers and other instructional and support staff in new, 

expanded, or restructured schools; and activities to mitigate within-school segregation, including 

providing ongoing professional development. 

Implementation grantees could also receive priority for support under Charter Schools Grants or 

Magnet Schools Assistance. 

National Activities

The Department would reserve funds for a range of national activities including technical 

assistance, evaluation, and dissemination. The Department would use these funds to, among

other things, develop and maintain a community of practice for grantees and other experts in the 

field and to promote collaboration and information sharing between low- and high-poverty 

schools.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $120 million in fiscal year 2017 for a new Stronger Together Grants 

program, which would be authorized through appropriations language. The request would 

support new planning grants and new implementation grants to help eligible applicants improve 

socioeconomic integration in approximately 500 schools within and across school districts. The 

request includes $2.5 million for national activities. Funds for the proposal would remain 

available until expended, which would provide the Department with flexibility to provide 

implementation funding in future years to successful planning grantees.

The Stronger Together Grants proposal is a central element of the Administration’s efforts to 

remove the barriers to learning that children living in concentrated poverty often face and to 

relieve the significant burden on high-poverty schools to improve academic and life outcomes 

for these students. The proposal is intended not only to encourage the development of 

innovative, ambitious plans to increase socioeconomic diversity through voluntary, communitysupported means, but also to expand existing efforts in States and communities that have 

embraced the research findings in this area while spurring a broader national conversation 

about the implications of these findings for school improvement. 

F-88
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Stronger together grants

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017

Amount for new awards $117,000

Number of new planning grants 10

Average planning grant award $2,000

Number of new implementation grants 4

Average implementation grant award $25,000

Number of schools supported 400–600 

Peer review of new award applications $500

National activities $2,500

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

activities that receive support under this program, based in part on the targets and goals 

established by grantees. The development of these measures would build on our experience in 

creating performance measures for other programs, and the Department would also seek to 

align program measures for Stronger Together Grants with measures for related programs.

F-89
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Next generation high schools

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

PP2016 2017 Change

0 $80,000 +$80,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The proposed Next Generation High Schools program would promote the whole school 

redesign of the high school experience through competitive grants to local educational agencies 

(LEAs) and their partners. The program would support innovative models that personalize 

instruction, promote active learning for students, and provide deep ties to postsecondary 

education to build the rigorous and relevant education needed for students to succeed. Given 

the demands of today’s innovation economy, the program would focus particularly on school 

models that are designed to engage and expand opportunities for girls and other groups 

underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. 

Too few of America’s high school students, especially girls and underrepresented minorities, are 

getting the chance to take the rigorous STEM courses that will prepare them for the 21st century 

economy. As shown in the Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection CRDC (CRDC) data, a 

quarter of high schools with the highest percentage of Black and Hispanic students do not offer

Algebra II, and a third fail to offer chemistry.1

Grantee activities would include one or more of the following: (1) redesigning academic content 

and instructional practices to promote active learning and to increase alignment with 

postsecondary education and career-readiness; (2) personalizing learning opportunities to 

support the educational needs and interests of individual students; (3) ensuring strong content 

knowledge and skills for teachers in all subjects, including STEM; (4) providing academic and 

wrap-around support services for those students who need them; (5) providing high-quality

career and college exploration and counseling on options for students after high school 

graduation; (6) offering multiple opportunities to engage in postsecondary learning, including 

earning college credit while still in high school; and (7) redesigning the using of learning time in 

more innovative and meaningful ways, such as through technology, by expanding the school 

day or calendar, or through competency-based progression.

Funds would support competitive grants to LEAs in partnership with institutions of higher 

education and entities such as nonprofit or community-based organizations, government 

agencies, and business or industry-related organizations. Partners would work together to help 

1 See http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Downloads/CRDC-College-and-Career-Readiness-Snapshot.pdf. 

F-90

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Next generation high schools

structure and facilitate college and career-ready experiences for high school students that help 

them apply academic concepts to real-world challenges. Grantees would also be required to 

leverage existing Federal, State, and local resources to implement their projects. Priority for 

grants would be given to projects supported by at least moderate evidence of effectiveness as 

defined in Department regulations. Special consideration would be given to projects that: 

(1) are designed to improve readiness for postsecondary education and careers in STEM fields, 

particularly for student groups historically underrepresented in those fields; (2) serve areas with 

limited access to high-quality college and career opportunities such as high-poverty or rural 

LEAs; or (3) include partnerships with employers that help students build career-related 

experiences or competencies.

The Department would set aside one-half of 1 percent of the total appropriation for the Bureau 

of Indian Education (BIE) for activities consistent with the purposes of the program. The 

Department would also reserve up to 2.5 percent of the appropriated funds for national 

activities, including research, development, demonstration, dissemination, technical assistance, 

and evaluation.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration requests $80 million for a new Next Generation High 

Schools program, which would be authorized through appropriations language. The program

would promote the whole school redesign of high schools and help create high schools that will 

be laboratories for cutting-edge STEM teaching and learning through competitive grants to 

LEAs in partnership with institutions of higher education and other entities so that students 

graduate from high school prepared to succeed in college and in the workforce. While 

America’s graduation rate is the highest on record, more than 1 million students still fail to 

graduate on time every year. The demands of the innovation economy require America’s 

secondary schools to adopt new and innovative approaches to engaging, preparing and 

inspiring college and career-ready students, through more personalized and active learning 

experiences in classrooms and through greater connections to the broader experience of young 

people’s lives. 

Next Generation High Schools would provide students with the academic foundation and skills 

they need to be successful and ensure that all students in redesigned high schools participate in 

project- or problem-based learning, have the opportunity to earn early college credit, and 

engage in experiences or postsecondary learning opportunities that build career-ready 

competencies. Accomplishing these goals will help improve longer term outcomes for high 

school students, including increased high school graduation rates, higher rates of enrollment in 

postsecondary studies without the need to take remedial courses, higher postsecondary 

completion rates, and higher rates of completion of industry-recognized credentials and 

certifications. 

Improving our high schools is a critical step for ensuring that our Nation remains competitive in 

today’s global economy. STEM skills are growing in demand as a core component of a diverse 

array of jobs, and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology estimates 

that the United States will need at least 1 million more college graduates than will be produced 

at current rates in the STEM fields over a decade. Today’s high school students are tomorrow’s 

F-91
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Next generation high schools

engineers, entrepreneurs, and civic leaders who must be critical thinkers and able to find 

solutions to complex and emerging challenges. High schools must provide them with a 

rigorous, engaging, and relevant education that prepares them to meet the demands of college 

and careers. 

The Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University projects that, by 2020, 

nearly two-thirds of job openings will require some postsecondary education and training, with 

30 percent of job openings requiring at least a certificate or associate’s degree and 35 percent a 

bachelor’s degree or higher. In blue collar occupations, about 31 percent of jobs will require 

some postsecondary education and training by 2020 (“Recovery: Projections of Jobs and 

Education Requirements through 2020.” Georgetown University, 2013). According to a similar 

analysis, in STEM fields, in particular, more than 90 percent of STEM workers will need at least 

some postsecondary education (“Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education 

Requirements through 2018.” Georgetown University, 2010).

In addition, as highlighted in CRDC data, only 50 percent of high schools offer calculus, and 

only 63 percent offer physics. In addition, between 10 and 25 percent of high schools do not 

offer more than one of the core courses in the typical sequence of high school mathematics and 

science education, such as Algebra I and II, geometry, biology, and chemistry. The situation is 

even worse for students underrepresented in STEM fields. 

Unfortunately, too many high school graduates are not prepared to succeed in college. 

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly one-third of first- or secondyear undergraduate students in the 2011–2012 school year reported having taken a remedial 

course after high school graduation, including 16 percent who took a remedial course that year

(see http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015167.pdf). These data suggest that too many of 

America’s existing high schools fail to engage, motivate, or adequately support and prepare 

students or to provide exposure to the relevant learning that bridges their classroom with future 

college experiences and careers. The Administration’s Next Generation High Schools proposal 

would address these concerns by promoting reforms based on evidence that students learn 

best when they are engaged in complex projects and tasks aligned with their interests, and 

when they work with others through practical examples and case studies that keep them 

engaged in rigorous academic coursework and in the application of knowledge. It would build 

on the momentum generated at the White House Summit on Next Generation learning, where 

the Administration announced $375 million dollars in private and public support for Next 

Generation High Schools, as well as the President’s proposal to support more innovative 

assessments.

Grantees would be expected to incorporate strategies that engage students in learning 

opportunities tied to real-world experiences and also provide students with rigorous, challenging 

academic content aligned with college-level expectations, including programs that allow 

students to gain postsecondary credit while still in high school. These experiences would help 

students develop not only academic content and cognitive competencies (such as critical 

thinking, solving complex and non-routine problems, and evaluating arguments on the basis of 

evidence), but also pertinent employability skills (including interpersonal and intrapersonal 

competencies, such as conscientiousness and persistence) that have been shown to have 

consistent positive correlations with desirable educational and career outcomes (“Education for 

F-92
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Next generation high schools

Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century”, National 

Research Council (NRC), 2012). In addition, projects would be expected to incorporate 

meaningful career exploration opportunities and high-quality college and career advisory 

services to help students plan for the pathway they need to follow to learn the skills and attain 

the credentials they need to enter their chosen careers. 

Grantees would use program funds to leverage other existing Federal, State, and local funds, 

including through the development of partnerships with business, industry, public or private 

nonprofit organizations, and community-based organizations. A key goal of such partnerships 

would be to ensure that career-related activities are aligned with real-world expectations, and to 

ensure alignment between secondary and postsecondary content and expectations.

The Department would particularly encourage applicants for Next Generation High Schools 

funding to propose projects that connect with relevant industry and community partners and 

increase engagement by underrepresented students in STEM fields, including girls, minorities, 

and students who will be the first in their families to attend college. Such strategies would 

replicate and expand efforts recommended in a 2011 NRC report (“Successful K–12 STEM 

Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics”) and successfully underway in parts of the country to offer inclusive STEMfocused high school experiences. For example, a June 2014 report from researchers at George 

Washington University, George Mason University, and SRI International found that students 

attending Gary and Jerri-Ann Jacobs High Tech High School in San Diego, CA—an early 

college high school that provides a rigorous STEM-focused curriculum to concentrations of 

minority and first-generation college-going students—outperformed their district and State peers 

on the SAT and ACT (“Gary and Jerri-Ann Jacobs High Tech High: A case study of an

inclusive STEM-focused high school in San Diego, California”). At Manor New Technology 

High School in Texas, another inclusive STEM-focused school, the same researchers found 

college enrollment rates that were significantly above the national average, with 74 percent of 

the school’s 2010 graduating class enrolling in an institution of higher education compared to a 

2010 national average enrollment rate of 41 percent (“Manor New Tech High School: A case

study of an inclusive STEM-focused high school in Manor, Texas,” 2013).

Next Generation High Schools is a key component of the Administration’s strategy to promote 

greater innovation in the design of teaching and learning for America’s high school students. 

The proposal complements the Administration’s dedicated funding in for high school redesign in 

the 2015 competition under the Education, Innovation, and Research program (formerly 

Investing in Innovation) as well as efforts to reform career and technical education outlined in 

the 2012 blueprint for reauthorizing the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act and the 

proposed Computer Science for All program. 

F-93
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Next generation high schools

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017

Amount for new awards $76,800

Range of awards $4,000–$12,000

Average award $6,000

Number of new awards 7–20

Number of schools supported 30–60

BIE $400

Peer review of new award 

applications $800

National activities $2,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

activities that receive support under this program. The development of these measures would 

build on our experience in creating performance measures for other programs, and the 

Department would also seek to align program measures for Next Generation High Schools with 

measures for related programs.

F-94
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Computer science for all development grants

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

PP2016 2017 Change

0 $100,000 +$100,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Building on current efforts to ensure that students have the knowledge and skills critical to 

success in college and 21st Century careers, the proposed Computer Science for All 

Development Grants program would promote innovative strategies to provide high-quality 

instruction and other learning opportunities in computer science (including computer 

programming and related skills such as computational thinking) in preschool through grade 12. 

Grants would focus on expanding access to these opportunities for high school students, 

particularly those in underserved communities, including in urban and rural areas, or who are 

from groups historically underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) fields. This program would provide a crucial initial investment in the Administration’s 

ambitious Computer Science for All proposal, which aims to make rigorous computer science 

and other STEM offerings available to all our Nation’s students, by identifying and further 

developing effective instructional models and practices that can be replicated and taken to scale 

across communities and States. 

Funds would support competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs), which may apply 

in consortia and partner with State educational agencies, institutions of higher education, 

nonprofit organizations, other government agencies, and business or industry-related 

organizations to help structure and facilitate project activities and ensure alignment with 

expectations for college and careers. To be eligible to receive an award, applicants would be 

required to show how they will develop and implement comprehensive instructional plans that 

include: (1) offering rigorous computer science courses in each high school, which may be part 

of broader efforts to expand and improve STEM instruction in those schools; (2) adopting a 

rigorous curriculum and progression of high-quality instruction and other learning opportunities 

in preschool through grade 8 that integrate principles of computer science and lay the

groundwork for academic success in high school; (3) increasing access to other rigorous 

coursework, including in STEM subjects, for underserved groups, including girls, minorities, 

low-income students, and students with disabilities; (4) continuously monitoring and evaluating 

project activities; and (5) effectively sustaining project activities following the grant period. In 

making awards, the Department would give priority to applicants that provide matching funds 

from other Federal, State, local, or private sources to implement their projects. Grantees could 

use matching funds in particular to increase overall access to rigorous coursework.

F-95
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Computer science for all development grants

Grantees would receive awards for up to 5 years, of which they may use up to 12 months to 

continue to refine their plans, including through partnership development and community 

outreach. Grantees would use funds during the implementation period to: (1) develop or 

acquire and implement course curricula and instructional materials aligned to the State’s 

challenging standards in science and mathematics including, at the high school level, for 

courses that enable students to earn college credit; (2) recruit and hire instructional personnel 

as needed, including curriculum specialists; (3) provide professional development to ensure 

high-quality instruction, including through online and other alternative delivery methods; 

(4) acquire necessary equipment and technology infrastructure; (5) attract underserved students 

to course offerings, including through mentoring; (6) disseminate information about effective 

instructional practices; and (7) prepare to sustain activities after the grant period ends. 

Grantees could also use funds to offer informal computer science experiences and to integrate 

principles of computer science into instruction in other subjects. 

The Department would reserve up to 2.5 percent of funds for national activities including 

technical assistance, evaluation, and dissemination. The Department would use these funds in 

particular to facilitate networking opportunities and communities of practice between grantees 

and other LEAs.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $100 million in fiscal year 2017 for the proposed Computer Science 

for All Development Grants, which would be authorized through appropriations language. This 

new program would provide a down payment toward the Administration’s goal of giving access 

to high-quality computer science instruction to all students, especially those living in poverty and 

underrepresented in STEM fields. Funds would support the first year of approximately 

25 5-year awards to LEAs that together with their partners are primed to develop and implement 

computer science instructional plans that can serve as models for similar efforts across the 

Nation. 

Providing access to computer science is a critical step for ensuring that our Nation remains 

competitive in the global economy and strengthens its cybersecurity. Today’s middle and high 

school students are tomorrow’s engineers, entrepreneurs, and leaders and must be equipped 

with strong computational skills and able to solve complex problems and counter growing 

cybersecurity threats. By supporting high-quality instruction in computer science, Computer 

Science for All Development Grants would help provide the next generation with the rigorous 

and relevant education to meet these demands. 

Moreover, greater attention to and investment in computer science education is sorely needed. 

Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce projects that, by 2020, 

51 percent of STEM jobs will be in computer science-related fields.1

 If current trends continue, 

1.4 million computer science-related jobs will be available over the next ten years, but according 

to the Bureau of Labor Statistics only 400,000 American computer science graduates will 

1 See https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/stem-complete.pdf. 

F-96

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Computer science for all development grants

emerge with the skills to needed to fill those jobs. This lack of skilled college graduates can be 

attributed, in part, by a dearth of opportunities to engage in computer science in elementary and 

secondary school. According to the National Center for Women and Information Technology, 

less than one-quarter of students nationwide has access to rigorous computer science courses.1

 

In light of findings such as these, it is clear we must redouble our efforts to prepare students and 

produce a workforce capable of sustaining and growing this critical sector of the economy.

Computer science skills are important not only for the technology sector but also for a growing 

number of industries that rely on computer software to improve their products and services, 

including transportation, healthcare, education, and financial services. Moreover, computer 

science instruction can help foster the problem-solving and analytical skills needed in many 

other disciplines and careers. Not surprisingly, parents increasingly recognize the importance of 

computer science: 9 out of 10 parents surveyed by Gallop say they want computer science 

taught at their child’s school.2

Computer Science for All Development Grants would also help address persistent equity gaps 

in the classroom. In November 2015 the College Board affirmed a continuing trend of 

disproportionately low participation by girls and minorities in the AP Computer Science exam, 

with just 22 percent of participants being girls and 13 percent minorities excluding Asian 

Americans.3

 In addition, according to another Gallup report commissioned by Google, Black 

and lower-income secondary school students were significantly less likely than their peers to 

report having computer science course offerings at their schools.4

The Computer Science for All Development Grants proposal seeks to capitalize on emerging 

local efforts to tackle these problems, including recently announced plans to provide all students 

access to computer science by LEAs in major urban areas including New York City, Los 

Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017

Amount for new awards $96,500

Range of awards $1,000–$10,000

Average award $4,000

Number of awards 15–35

Number of schools supported 400–600

1 See http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/12/prweb10219767.htm. 2 See http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/images-of-computer-science-report.pdf. 3 See http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2015/11/no_africanamerican_students_2015_AP_computer_science_exam_nine_states.html. 4 See http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/searching-for-computer-science_report.pdf.

F-97

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Computer science for all development grants

Output Measures 2017

Peer review of new award 

applications $1,000

National activities $2,500

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

activities that receive support under this program. The development of these measures would 

build on our experience in creating performance measures for other programs, and the 

Department would also seek to align program measures for Computer Science for All 

Development Grants with measures for related programs.

F-98
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: 1

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$25,741 $25,741 0

1 Of the funds appropriated for Title IV, Part F (which is authorized at $200,741 thousand), $5,000 thousand is 

reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder, 28 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities, which includes the Ready to 

Learn program. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), 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 

F-99
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

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.

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. 

For the 2015 competition, the Department invited applicants to produce and distribute 

high-quality, age-appropriate, and standards-based educational television and digital media 

content that focuses on science or American history and civics. The Department awarded two

5-year grants in 2015:

• Twin Cities Public Television will receive $36.8 million over the 5-year grant period 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 project will 

build on evidence-based research on the most effective uses of television and interactive 

media to significantly improve educational outcomes and narrow achievement gaps; create 

innovative approaches and uses of new technology to maximize engagement and learning; 

and use formative research as well as embedded analytics and assessments for continuous 

review and improvement of all project components. The project goal is to improve the 

school readiness and academic achievement of children ages 5 to 8 living in low-income 

households in science knowledge (earth and space science, life science, physical science, 

engineering design), scientific thinking, and literacy.

• The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, in partnership with the Public Broadcasting 

Service, will receive $99.1 million over the 5-year grant period to create 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. The expected outcomes include increasing children’s science and literacy 

skills and boosting the capacity of families, educators, and communities to support children’s 

learning with media.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2012...........................................................$27,194

2013.............................................................25,771

2014.............................................................25,741

2015.............................................................25,741

2016.............................................................25,741

F-100
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2017 request includes $25.7 million for Ready to learn (RTL) 

Programming, the same as the 2016 level. All funds would be used for continuation awards 

under 5-year grants made in fiscal year 2015 prior to the enactment of the ESSA. Children, 

particularly children in high-poverty settings, spend large amounts of time watching television 

and using digital media. Researchers in many fields have looked carefully at whether and how 

television viewing might contribute to the “literacy gap,” and, conversely, whether and how 

television and digital media can be used as a tool to promote literacy development. Recent 

research suggests that television and transmedia can have a positive impact on children’s 

literacy and learning, provided certain conditions are in place. Producers and developers must 

understand how children learn, and how programming content can facilitate such learning. 

Individual episodes should reflect what research tells us about effective educational 

programming. For example, programs that succeed in helping children learn tend to help 

children understand how to watch and make sense of what they see. Such programs also 

develop familiarity by using recurring characters and situations, repeat key tasks and 

information, link knowledge to what children already know, and are carefully paced to keep 

children cognitively engaged throughout each episode.

Early childhood, preschool, and elementary school curricula typically emphasize basic skills in 

math and reading. RTL content is specifically designed to reinforce young children’s literacy 

skills, emphasizing letter recognition, vocabulary, fluency, rhyming, and comprehension. 

Through targeted outreach and marketing campaigns, grantees actively reach out to parents 

and caregivers, particularly in high-poverty rural and urban communities, to encourage the use 

of RTL programming to support the skills that children need to succeed in school. The two 

projects currently funded by this program are designed, in part, to put these research findings 

into practice to improve educational outcomes for young children, help them enter school 

prepared, and help ensure that they have the skills to be on track to graduate high school ready 

for college and careers.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Number of new awards 2 0 0

Number of continuation 

awards 0 2 2

New award funding $25,424 0 0

Continuation award funding 0 $25,681 $25,681

Peer review 257 0 0

F-101
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Evaluation (review of grant 

products) 60 60 60

Total 25,741 25,741 25,741

_________________

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

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

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

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. The Department reserved $128,705 from the RTL program 

under this authority in fiscal year 2015, and may reserve additional funds for ESEA evaluation activities in fiscal years 

2016 and 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

For the 2010 competition, the Department established two invitational priorities: (1) developing 

educational content in reading or mathematics that is designed to increase the literacy or 

numeracy skills of low-income children ages 2 to 8, delivering the content through coordinated 

use of multiple media platforms, and developing effective outreach strategies; and (2) providing 

for the development and dissemination of products and results through open educational 

resources and by making the products freely available through various media platforms. In 

addition, applicants could earn competitive preference points for projects proposing a research 

plan that was based on rigorous scientifically based research methods to assess effectiveness. 

The Department made three awards, and the 2010 grantees focused on producing new 

materials and strategies that reflect changes in television distribution and production and the 

rise of new digital media platforms. Grantees generally began their projects by creating and 

launching digital learning materials (including video), using these materials to stimulate interest 

among target children, and then developing television shows. 

Performance Measures

In 2012, the Department revised the performance measures for the RTL program to better 

measure both RTL’s effectiveness in improving what children learn and the number of children 

RTL is reaching. The revised measures are: 

(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 

F-102
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

(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 three 2010 grantees planned a total of seven experimental or quasi-experimental research 

studies, to be conducted beginning in year 3 of the grant. The results of these studies provide 

data on the first performance measure. The Department received the first three studies in 2013. 

All three studies found that children who use RTL-produced educational media products 

demonstrate positive and statistically significant gains in math or literacy skills when RTL 

transmedia properties are compared to either similar non-RTL funded digital properties or to 

other more traditional educational materials. Therefore, in 2013, 100 percent of experimental or 

quasi-experimental research studies conducted by RTL grantees met the first performance 

measure. In 2014, the Department received two research studies for review, both of which 

found that children using RTL-produced products demonstrated statistically significant gains in 

math skills compared to children who used similar non-RTL products. Therefore, in 2014, 

100 percent of the research studies met the performance measure. In 2015, the Department 

received four research studies for review, three of which found that children using RTLproduced products demonstrated statistically significant gains when compared to similar, nonRTL-produced products.

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. As shown in the chart below, in 2012, two of 

three transmedia product suites reviewed were of high-quality; in 2013, two of five suites 

reviewed were of high-quality; in 2014, three of five suites reviewed were of high-quality; and in 

2015, three of the four transmedia product suites reviewed were of high-quality.

2012 2013 2014 2015

F-103
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

For the third performance measure, grantees reported on the number of children who used 

RTL-produced products, by type of product. In 2013, 46.5 million users accessed RTLproduced educational media products. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) reported 

46.4 million users, of which 30.7 million watched CPB television shows, 15.0 million used Webbased games, and 784 thousand downloaded mobile apps. Window to the World (WTTW) 

reported a total of 38.5 thousand users, 23.5 thousand of whom used Web-based products and 

14.5 thousand of whom participated in one of WTTW’s 25 pilot programs. Finally, the Hispanic 

Information and Telecommunications Network (HITN) reported 632 children who used HITN’s 

mobile apps and accompanying transmedia at HITN pilot sites. In 2014, 41.8 million users 

accessed RTL-produced educational media products. CPB reported 35.9 million users, which 

includes PBS television viewers, PBS Kids Web site users, web application downloads, and 

children participating in outreach programs. WTTW reported 615.6 thousand users including 

web users, participants in outreach programs, and those who accessed WTTW products via 

YouTube. Finally, HITN reported 6.3 million users, which includes HITN viewers, pilot sites, 

museum partners, Web site and social media users, community events, and conference 

attendees. In 2015, 40.9 million users accessed RTL-produced educational media products. 

CPB reported 32.8 million users, which includes PBS television viewers, PBS Kids Web site 

users, application downloads, children participating in outreach programs, and other metrics. 

WTTW reported 7.4 million users, including internet usage, kiosk users, and participants in 

outreach programs. Finally, HITN reported 736 thousand users, including HITN television 

viewers, pilot sites, museum partners, Web site and social media users, community events, and 

conference attendees.

Performance data for the 2015 cohort will be available in 2017.

Efficiency Measure

The Department developed 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. Because high-quality children’s television 

programs are expensive to develop, produce, and distribute, Federal support for new 

programming through the RTL programs is typically used by grantees to attract additional 

revenue from the private sector. Program quality is directly affected by the extent to which 

grantees succeed in using Federal dollars to leverage additional funds from alternate sources. 

Therefore, the Department will use this measure to compare the relative success of RTL 

grantees in leveraging non-Federal investments for the development and production of new 

children’s television programs. 

Because the Department does not expect grantees to establish annual leveraging targets, and 

does not set a schedule for obtaining matching funds, the meaningful period of analysis for 

purposes of comparing grantee performance is the entire 5-year award period. During the 

5-year period comprising fiscal years 2005–2009, the Department provided two grantees with 

$98.55 million in funding for programming. These two grantees together contributed a total of 

$66.15 million in non-Federal funding to programming activities, or $0.67 non-Federal dollars for 

every Federal dollar; the individual grantee amounts were $0.29 and $1.03. Initially, the 

Department had planned to use the $0.67 figure established by the 2005 grantees as the 

baseline against which to measure future efficiency. However, because of changes instituted to 

F-104
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

the program in 2010, grantees have been producing fewer television shows and instead 

focusing, at least initially, on the creation and distribution of digital media products such as 

applications and online educational games. This makes it easier and less expensive to release 

content and requires fewer external funds to be leveraged in support of television production. In 

the first year of the 2010 grants, the three grantees leveraged $9.8 million of non-Federal 

support compared to $19.5 million in Federal dollars spent on production, or $0.50 of nonFederal dollars for every Federal dollar. In 2014, the three grantees leveraged $0.73 of nonFederal dollars for every Federal dollar spent. ($11.7 million of non-Federal support compared 

to $16.0 million in Federal dollars spent on production.) In 2015, the three grantees leveraged 

$14.0 million of non-Federal support, compared to $20.1 million in Federal dollars spent, or 

$0.70 of non-Federal dollars for every Federal dollar spent.

F-105
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Advanced placement

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$28,483 0 -$28,483

_________________

1 The authorization for this program was struck by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, which reauthorized 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), eliminated the Advanced Placement programs, 

previously authorized by Title I, Part G of the ESEA. However, Congress provided a final 

appropriation of $28.4 million for Advanced Placement in fiscal year 2016 and, consistent with 

the transition provisions of the ESSA and the 2016 Department of Education Appropriations Act, 

the Department will make a final round of awards for fiscal year 2016.

Title I, Part G of the ESEA, as in effect prior to enactment of the ESSA, authorized two 

programs: the Advanced Placement Test Fee program and the Advanced Placement Incentive 

program. The purpose of both programs is to support State and local efforts to increase access 

to Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and other approved advanced 

courses and tests (collectively referred to as “advanced placement courses and tests”) for 

students from low-income families. The statute requires the Department to give priority to 

funding the Advanced Placement Test Fee program, with remaining funds allocated to 

Advanced Placement Incentive grants.

Advanced Placement Test Fee program

Under this program, the Department provides noncompetitive awards to States to enable them 

to cover all or part of the cost of test fees for students from low-income families who are enrolled 

in an advanced placement course and plan to take an advanced placement test. By subsidizing 

test fees, the program encourages students from low-income families to take advanced 

placement courses and tests and obtain college credit for their courses, thereby reducing the 

time and cost required to complete a postsecondary degree.

Advanced Placement Incentive program

This program provides 3-year competitive awards to States, local educational agencies (LEAs), 

and national nonprofit educational entities with expertise in providing advanced placement 

services to expand access for students from low-income families to advanced placement 

F-106
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Advanced placement

courses and programs. Authorized activities include, but are not limited to, teacher training, 

development of pre-advanced placement courses, activities to enhance coordination and 

articulation between grade levels in order to prepare students for academic achievement in 

advanced placement courses, the purchase of books and supplies, and activities to enhance the

availability of and expand participation in online advanced placement courses. 

In recent years, stemming from a combination of reduced appropriations and rapid growth in the 

number of advanced placement tests taken annually by low-income students, available funds 

have been insufficient for grants under the Incentive program and necessitated reductions in the 

level of Department support under the Test Fee program. Specifically, the Department 

eliminated its coverage of test registration fees (i.e., one-time per-student fees that are separate 

from and in addition to the fees for individual tests) under the Test Fee program and reduced 

the maximum amount of its subsidy such that States, school districts, or students were required 

to contribute a specified minimum amount per test. In fiscal year 2015, the required minimum 

contribution from these sources was $12 per test. As of February 2016, the Department had not 

yet determined the Federal subsidy level for the Test Fee program in fiscal year 2016.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)footnote

2012................................ ..........................$30,0551

2013................................ ............................28,890 2

2014................................ ............................28,483

2015................................ ............................28,483

2016................................ ............................28,483

_________________

1 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2012 of $2,906 thousand from Magnet Schools Assistance and 

$200 thousand from Charter Schools Grants to Advanced Placement.

2 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2013 of $407 thousand from the Fund for the Improvement of 

Education: Programs of National Significance.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration does not request fiscal year 2017 funding for the Advanced Placement 

programs because these programs are no longer authorized under the ESEA as amended by 

the ESSA. States and LEAs may use funds under the new Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment State Grants program for activities previously supported under these programs. 

The fiscal year 2017 request includes $500 million for this program, which is described in the 

School Improvement Programs account.

F-107
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Advanced placement

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Test Fee program

Amount for new awards $28,483 $28,483 0

Number of new awards 40 40 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and the resources and efforts 

invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To increase the numbers of low-income high school students prepared to pursue 

higher education.

Objective: Encourage a greater number of low-income and other underrepresented categories 

of students to participate in the AP and IB programs and pass the exams.

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests taken by low-income public school 

students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2012 600,318 710,100

2013 781,110 768,010

2014 859,221 848,146

2015 945,143 932,120

2016 1,039,657

2017 1,143,623

F-108
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Advanced placement

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests passed (tests receiving scores of 3–5) by 

low-income public school students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2012 222,118 268,860

2013 300,727 289,283

2014 335,955 330,486

2015 375,221 348,402

2016 418,982

2017 467,742

Measure: The percentage of Advanced Placement tests passed (tests receiving scores of 3–5) 

by low-income public school students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2012 37.0% 37.9%

2013 38.5 37.7

2014 39.1 39.0

2015 39.7 37.4

2016 40.3

2017 40.9

Additional Information: The data for these measures are obtained from the College Board 

and capture the effects of efforts to increase low-income public school students’ participation in 

AP courses and success on AP exams. The targets for these measures have been revised 

beginning with the 2013 targets based on actual performance in 2012.

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests taken by minority (Hispanic, Black, Native 

American) public school students nationally.

Additional Information: The data for this measure are obtained from the College Board and 

capture the effects of efforts to increase minority public school students’ participation in AP 

programs. The targets for this measure have been revised beginning with the 2013 target 

based on actual performance in 2012.

Year Target Actual

2012 721,562 751,428

2013 788,999 846,872

2014 828,449 931,130

2015 869,871 1,013,101

2016 913,365

2017 959,033

F-109
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Advanced placement

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The cost per passage of an Advanced Placement test by a low-income public school 

student.

Year Target Actual

2012 $91.29 $93.16

2013 91.29 123.48

2014 91.29 89.60

2015 91.29

2016 91.29

2017 91.29

Additional Information: The results for this measure are calculated by dividing the total 

amount of Federal funds that States receiving AP Test Fee grants report spending on AP test 

fees by the total number of such tests passed by low-income students in those States. The 

comparatively lower cost per passage in 2012 could be explained, in part, by the fact that the 

Department’s Test Fee grants were sufficient to cover only approximately 75 percent of States’ 

requests for test fee support. Similarly, the lower cost per passage in 2014 could be partly 

attributed to the reduction in the Department’s maximum per-test contribution (in 2014, the 

Department provided a maximum contribution per AP test of $37, compared to a maximum 

contribution of $45 per test in 2013). The 2015 data for this measure are expected to be 

available in spring 2016.

F-110
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Preschool development grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$250,0002 0 -$250,000

1 The program is authorized in the Department of Health and Human Services.

2 The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2016, provided funds under Fund for the Improvement of 

Education in the Innovation and Improvement account.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 authorized the Preschool Development 

Grants program under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and made 

revisions to the program. Previously, the program had been authorized through appropriations 

language and was funded through the Department of Education (ED). ED and HHS have 

worked together to implement the prior Preschool Development Grants and under the new law, 

the program will be funded through HHS and jointly administered by the two Departments.

The Preschool Development Grants program was created in 2014 to build state and local 

capacity to implement preschool for 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families, 

consistent with the President’s Preschool for All mandatory proposal. The program, 

administered collaboratively by ED and HHS, has supported two types of grants to states: 

(1) Development Grants for states with small or no state public preschool program to develop or 

enhance their preschool program infrastructure and capacity to deliver high-quality preschool 

services to eligible children in one or more high-need communities; and (2) Expansion Grants to 

states with more robust preschool systems to implement and expand high-quality preschool 

programs to serve additional children in high-need communities. Both types of grants were

renewable for up to 4 years. Grantees had the option to implement services through a mixeddelivery system of providers including schools, licensed child care centers, Head Start, or other 

community-based organizations.

In the cohort of grants funded prior to the passage of the ESSA, grantees were required to meet 

nationally recognized program quality standards, including the following elements: (1) high staff 

qualifications, including a bachelor of arts degree for teachers; (2) professional development for 

teachers and staff; (3) low staff-child ratios and small class sizes; (4) a full-day program; 

(5) developmentally appropriate, evidence-based curricula and learning environments that are 

aligned with state early learning and development standards; (6) individual accommodations 

and supports for children; (7) instructional staff salaries that are comparable to those for K-12 

F-111
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Preschool development grants

instructional staff; (8) ongoing program evaluation to ensure continuous improvement; (9) onsite 

comprehensive services for children; and (10) evidence-based health and safety standards.

In fiscal year 2014, the Department of Education, in collaboration with HHS, awarded grants to a 

total of 18 States for 4-year programs -- five Development Grants (Alabama, Arizona, Hawaii, 

Montana, Nevada) and 13 Expansion Grants (Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, 

Virginia). These 18 States received continuation funding for fiscal year 2015 and are scheduled 

to receive a third year of funding for fiscal year 2016. 

This is an extended availability program. Since 2014, funds have been available until

December 31 of the following fiscal year.

Starting in fiscal year 2017, funding for the Preschool Development Grant program will reside in 

HHS, as required by the ESSA Act of 2015. This program will be jointly administered with the 

Department of Education. Per the statute, the purpose is to coordinate early childhood 

education programs in a mixed delivery system of providers including schools, licensed child 

care centers, Head Start, or other community-based organizations that will prepare low-income 

and disadvantaged children to enter kindergarten. The statute specifies that one way to 

accomplish this goal is by improving the participation of children in a mixed delivery system and 

increasing the quality of the programs in this system. As a result, grants awarded under the 

ESSA will include a focus on expanding access to high-quality preschool for children from lowand moderate-income households, consistent with the President’s Preschool for All proposal. 

The statute supports two types of grants to states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 

outlying areas:

• Planning grants that support: statewide needs assessments, which includes the availability 

and quality of preschool services in the state and unduplicated counts of both services and 

unmet need among eligible families; a strategic plan that identifies opportunities to 

coordinate programs and build partnerships, including among Head Start providers, local 

education agencies, state, local, and Tribal government, and private entities; families’ 

involvement in their children’s development and in their knowledge of early childhood 

options; sharing best practices among early childhood education programs; and improving 

the quality of programs in the State; and 

• Renewal grants that improve the overall quality of programs in the state, and, through 

subgrants to programs in a mixed delivery system, expand the access to such programs, 

and develop new programs to address the needs of children and families eligible for, but not 

served by, existing programs. States that have received PDG grants previously are eligible 

to compete directly for renewal grants. 

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2017 request for the Preschool Development Grants (PDG) program is $350 

million, an increase of $100 million from the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. Funding in fiscal 

year 2017 will support the fourth and final year of funding for the 18 current PDG grantees as 

well as initial implementation of the changes contained in the ESSA in order to better coordinate 

F-112
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Preschool development grants

and expand early learning services for children and families, with a goal of supporting State and 

school district efforts to expand access to high-quality preschool. These investments are 

complemented by significant new investments in Head Start, child care, and home visiting within 

HHS as well as the Preschool for All initiative at the Department of Education.

Although funding authority in fiscal year 2017 will now shift to HHS, the two departments will 

work closely together to jointly administer the program and will develop a Memorandum of 

Understanding that includes joint staffing of PDG implementation and ensures a smooth 

transition for all grantees.

The fiscal year 2017 request would allow HHS to work with the Department of Education to

issue 18 continuation grants for the fourth and final year of the existing initiative, which enables 

existing PDG grantees to continue building and expanding preschool in their States. Working in 

over 200 communities, the current grantees have demonstrated tremendous success in building 

the fundamental components of a high-quality preschool system and expanding high-quality

preschool models. For example, Arizona is providing early childhood mental health consultation 

and intervention as part of the comprehensive supports to PDG-funded programs, which are 

located in high-need communities. In Illinois, eligible children with disabilities make up 

10 percent of all children in PDG-funded programs, and the State has hired experts to work with 

districts, Head Start programs, and child care providers to build the capacity of teachers, 

parents, and the child care workforce to ensure their classrooms are inclusive of children with 

disabilities. Maryland’s Preschool Development grant has enabled the State to expand its mixed 

delivery system and fund certified teachers in community-based settings. In Louisiana, the state 

is working for the first time with community networks to enable communities and providers to 

support parent choice. Rhode Island has blended their Preschool Development Grant funds 

with state preschool funds so that all children receive a high-quality, full-day preschool 

experience. 

Using the requirements in ESSA, the Secretary of HHS, in conjunction with the Secretary of 

Education, would also award new grants in fiscal year 17. These grants would be available to 

states on a competitive basis for one or both of the types of grants supported by the statute. 

Additionally, this request would allow the Secretary of HHS to reserve up to five percent of PDG 

funds for national activities, including technical assistance; evaluation; early education research;

and pilots to support the transition from preschool to elementary school, improve the early 

grades, and support for exemplary child development practices. 

Research findings provide strong justification for Federal investment in high-quality preschool 

programs. Children who attend high-quality preschool are better prepared for school; less likely 

to be retained in grade; score higher on reading and math assessments in the elementary 

grades; and are more likely to graduate from high school than children who do not attend such 

programs. These benefits are particularly strong for children from low-income families. In 

addition to the educational gains, investment in high-quality preschool provides economic 

benefits, with an estimated return on investment of roughly $7–$10 for every $1 invested in 

high-quality preschool due to lower remedial education costs, increased labor productivity, and 

reduction in crime. 

F-113
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Preschool development grants

Yet, despite these benefits and strong returns on investment, fewer than 1 in 3 4-year olds are 

enrolled in a state-funded preschool program. The United States ranks 31 out of 39 countries 

within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for preschool enrollment 

for 4-year-olds. Further, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research’s State 

of Preschool: 2014 analysis, only 5 State preschool programs meet the 10 research-based 

quality standards outlined in their report. The report further indicates that only 24 State 

preschool programs require preschool teachers to have a bachelor’s degree, 15 States offer fullday programs (although local programs in 22 States may offer full-day programs as well), 

35 programs offer comprehensive services, and 32 State programs require site visits.1

 While 

significant progress has been made since the President’s call to action for Preschool for All in 

2013, quality and access are uneven across the country. Some States have put in place 

elements of high-quality preschool programs, but there remains a significant need for targeted 

investments to expand access to high-quality preschool to all 4-year-olds from low- and 

moderate-income families.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2015 2016 2017

Amount for new awards 0 0 0

Total number of new awards 0 0 0

Number of new Development awards 0 0 0

Number of new Expansion awards 0 0 0

Amount for continuation awards $243,759 $242,500 0

Number of continuation awards 18 18 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 0

National Activities $6,241 $7,500 0

Total, Preschool Development Grants $250,000 $250,000 0

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

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

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

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

Development Grants program under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may reserve funds for ESEA evaluation 

activities in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

Funding for fiscal year 2017 is provided in the HHS request.

1 Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Squires, J.H., Clarke Brown, K., & Horowitz, M. (2015). The state of 

preschool 2014: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education 

Research.

F-114

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Preschool development grants

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department developed the following performance measures for both Development Grants 

and Expansion Grants: (1) The number and percentage of eligible children served in 

high-quality preschool programs funded by the grant; (2) The number and percentage of 

children served overall in the State preschool program; and (3) The number and percentage of 

children in the high-need communities served by the grant that are ready for kindergarten as 

determined by the State's kindergarten entry assessment or, if the State does not yet have a 

kindergarten entry assessment, other valid and reliable means of determining school readiness. 

Additionally, the Department developed the following performance measure specifically for 

Development Grants: the number of States that collect and analyze data on State preschool 

program quality, including the structural elements of quality specified in the definition of 

high-quality preschool programs. The Department expects to have preliminary performance 

data for 2014, representing school year 2015–2016, available in winter 2016.

F-115
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change 

$27,000 $27,000 0

1 Of the funds appropriated for Title IV, Part F (which is authorized at $200,741 thousand), $5,000 thousand is 

reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder 28 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities which include the Arts in 

Education program. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), 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 reauthorized 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) community and national 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 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. 

Prior to enactment of ESSA, the Arts in Education program supported: (1) Model Development 

and Dissemination grants that supported the development, documentation, evaluation, and 

dissemination of innovative models that sought to integrate and strengthen arts instruction in 

elementary and middle schools and improve students’ academic performance and achievement 

in the arts; (2) Professional Development for Arts Educators grants that supported the 

development of professional development programs for music, dance, drama, and visual arts 

educators; and (3) National Arts in Education grants that supported national nonprofit arts 

organizations to carry out high-quality arts education programs for children and youth, with 

particular emphasis on serving students from low-income families and students with disabilities. 

Most fiscal year 2017 funds would be used for continuation awards supporting these activities, 

consistent with the transition provisions of the ESSA.

F-116
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012 ....................................................... $24,953

2013 ......................................................... 23,648

2014 ......................................................... 25,000

2015 ......................................................... 25,000

2016 ......................................................... 27,000

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $27.0 million for the Arts in Education program for fiscal year 

2017, the same as the 2016 level. The request includes appropriations language overriding the 

authorized funding level for this program. The Administration’s request would provide 

$6.7 million for the Arts in Education National Program, $12.3 million for the Development and 

Dissemination program, and $7.6 million for the Professional Development for Arts Educators 

program. 

Instruction and involvement in the arts, including the visual arts, music, dance, theater, and the 

media arts, are widely recognized as vital to a well-rounded education and may contribute to 

improved student achievement and success for all students. Federal and State education 

policies have recognized the value of arts. At the Federal level, the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA) includes the arts as one of the components of a well-rounded education. 

Similarly, at the State level, 45 States have arts instructional requirements for elementary 

school, 50 have arts education standards, and 42 have arts requirements for high school 

graduation. However, only 27 States have defined arts as a core academic subject. A 

2009 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), titled Access to Arts Education, 

found that nearly 90 percent of elementary school teachers reported no change in the amount of 

time spent on arts instruction between school years 2004–2005 and 2006–2007. However, the 

report also noted that teachers in schools identified as in need of improvement and those with 

high percentages of minority students were more likely to report a reduction in time spent on the 

arts, which suggests that SEAs, LEAs, and nonprofit organizations may need to target arts 

funding toward serving students in those schools.

The Administration’s request would support State and local efforts to improve and expand arts 

education, including arts programming in high-poverty schools, through the development and 

implementation of high-quality, cohesive, and innovative strategies for art instruction. For 

example, under the program as reauthorized by the ESSA, the Professional Development for 

Arts Educators (PDAE) program focuses exclusively on providing high-quality professional 

development programs in music, dance, media and visual arts, and drama for art teachers in 

high-poverty schools. The Arts Development and Dissemination program also addresses the 

needs of low-income children by supporting the development and expansion of research-based 

instructional materials and programming that integrate the arts into the curricula of elementary 

and middle schools in which 20 percent or more of the children are from low-income families. 

F-117
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015

footnote

2016

footnote

2017

Arts Development and Dissemination

 emination:Total funds available $12,356 $14,477 $14,865

 emination:Amount for new awards $351 0 $7,004

 emination:Number of new awards 1 0 18

 emination:Amount for continuation awards $11,830 $13,952 $7,241

 emination:Number of continuation awards 26 27 21

 emination: Interagency transfer to support the Arts 

Education Partnership $175 $525 $350

 emination:Peer review of new award applications 0

1

0 $270

Professional Development for Arts 

Educators

 ucators:Total funds available $5,450 $6,450 $5,060

 ucators:Amount for new awards 0 0 0

 ucators:Number of new awards 0 0 0

 cators:Amount for continuation awards $5,450 $5,450 $5,060

 ucators:Number of continuation awards 17 17 17

 ucators:Peer review of new award applications 0

1

0 0

National Arts in Education Program

 rogram: Total funds available $6,577 $6,576 $6,575

 rogram: Amount for new awards $6,575 0 0

 rogram: Number of new awards 1 0 0

 rogram: Amount for continuation awards 0 $6,762 $6,575

 rogram: Number of continuation awards 0 1 1

 rogram: Peer review of new award applications $2 0 0

Evaluation $617 $497 $500 _________________________

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

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

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

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. The Department reserved $124,931 from the Arts in Education 

program under this authority in fiscal year 2015, and may reserve additional funds for ESEA evaluation activities in 

fiscal years 2016 and 2017. 1

The Department funded new applications in FY 2015 from the FY 2014 slate.

F-118
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

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

this program.

Goal: To 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

2012 35% 84%

2013 40 84

2014 45 29

2015 50

2016 55

2017

In 2011, the Department defined sustained and intensive professional development for the 

PDAE program 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.

Measure: The percentage of PDAE projects in which teachers show a statistically significant 

increase in content knowledge in the arts.

Year Target Actual

2012 100% 100%

2013 100 100

2014 100 100

2015 100

2016 100

2017

F-119
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

Additional Information: The Department requires that 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.

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

2012 64% 55%

2013 54 45

2014

2015

2016

2017

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

2012 57% 43%

2013 46 39

2014

2015

2016

2017

Additional Information: The Department expects to have 2014 performance data for both the 

reading and math measures, representing school year 2013–2014, available in spring 2016. 

The Department also developed the following four measures for the Arts in Education National 

Program (AENP).

Measure: The total number of students who participate in standards-based arts education 

sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2013 697,632 1,006,004

2014

2015

2016

2017

F-120
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

Measure: The percent of teachers participating in the grantee’s program who receive 

professional development that is sustained and intensive.

Year Target Actual

2013 22.0% 20.3%

2014

2015

2016

2017

Measure: The total number of students from low-income families who participate in standardsbased arts education sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2013 244,845 519,110

2014

2015

2016

2017

Measure: The total number of students with disabilities who participate in standards-based arts 

education sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2013 86,397 257,512

2014

2015

2016

2017

Additional Information: The Department expects to have 2014 data available in spring 2016, 

after the grantee completes its 1-year no-cost extension.

F-121
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Non-cognitive skills initiative

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: 01

2016 2017 Change

$3,000 0 -$3,000

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

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), eliminated the Fund for the Improvement of 

Education, Title V, Part D, Subpart 1 of the ESEA, the authority under which the Non-Cognitive 

Skills initiative operated. However, Congress provided a final appropriation of $3 million for 

program activities in fiscal year 2016, including activities that will be implemented in the 

2016–2017 school year.

The Non-Cognitive Skills initiative supports local educational agencies (LEAs) and their partners 

in implementing, evaluating, and refining tools and approaches for developing the non-cognitive 

skills of middle-school students in order to increase student success. Grants may be used to 

fund a range of activities (e.g., digital games, growth mindset classroom activities, experiential 

learning opportunities) that integrate the development of students' non-cognitive skills into 

classroom-level activities and existing strategies designed to improve school performance. 

The Department also expects grantees to: (1) collect, analyze, and use data to improve their 

tools and strategies throughout the project period, (2) identify and validate scalable tools and 

approaches that can be used by educators of high-need middle-school students across the 

country, (3) build capacity to conduct research and apply that research to school- and districtlevel practices, and (4) develop sustainable partnerships that can continue the use of effective 

tools and approaches beyond the grant period.

In fiscal year 2015, the Department awarded four grants to Chicago Public Schools, Long Beach 

Unified School District, KIPP Houston Public Schools, and the Los Angeles Unified School 

District. Grantees’ projects focus on such topics as: testing and refining the hypothesis that 

additional non-cognitive supports during the middle grades will improve students’ academic 

performance and preparedness for high school; developing, demonstrating, and evaluating

promising new tools and strategies that will dramatically enhance middle school students’ noncognitive skills, with an emphasis on STEM; validating and expanding a successful noncognitive middle school program with teacher, student, and parent training components; and 

refining teacher-training and parent engagement tools that help develop non-cognitive skills in 

middle school students to support academic and lifelong success, using the growth mindset 

model.

F-122
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Non-cognitive skills initiative

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012......................................................................0

2013......................................................................0

2014......................................................................0

2015.............................................................$2,000

2016...............................................................3,000

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for the Non-Cognitive Skills initiative in 2017

because there is no authority in the ESEA, as reauthorized by the ESSA, to continue program 

activities. Funds appropriated in fiscal year 2016 will be used to fully fund continuation awards 

for the remaining 2 years for all 4 grantees.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Amount for new awards $2,000 0 0

Number of new awards 4 0 0

Amount for continuation awards 0 $3,000 0

Number of continuation awards 0 4 0

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

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

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

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Department did not reserve funds from the NonCognitive Skills initiative under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may reserve funds for ESEA evaluation activities in 

fiscal year 2016.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department established the following two performance measures for the Non-Cognitive 

Skills initiative grants: (1) the percentage of grantees that demonstrate improvement in 

participating students' academic and behavioral outcomes; and (2) the percentage of grantees 

that demonstrate that at least one tool or approach for enhancing participating students' noncognitive skills is effective, refined, if necessary, and validated. The Department expects to 

have preliminary performance data for 2015 available in fall 2016.

F-123
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Javits gifted and talented education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4, 

Section 4644)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$12,000 $12,000 0

1 Of the total amount appropriated for Title IV, Part F (authorized at $200,741 thousand) after reserving $5,000 

thousand for Subpart 3, 36 percent is available for Subpart 4, including for Javits Gifted and Talented Education and 

the other programs authorized under this subpart.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Javits Gifted and Talented Education is intended to support 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 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.

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

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, including innovative methods and strategies for identifying 

and teaching students traditionally underserved in such programs; and provide technical 

assistance and disseminate information. Prior to enactment of the ESSA, recipients could use 

funds for additional activities that are no longer allowable, including professional development 

for school personnel.

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. The Department must evaluate the impact of funded 

projects on students traditionally served in separate gifted and talented education programs and 

F-124
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Javits gifted and talented education

on other students and submit results of this evaluation to Congress not later December 9, 2017 

(2 years after the date of enactment of the ESSA).

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012......................................................................0

2013......................................................................0

2014.............................................................$5,000

2015.............................................................10,000

2016.............................................................12,000

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $12 million for Javits Gifted and Talented Education for fiscal year 

2017, the same as the fiscal year 2016 level. The request includes appropriations language 

specifying the funding level for this program. Funds would be used to continue awards made in 

prior years under the ESEA as in effect prior to enactment of the ESSA (including the award for 

the National Research Center for the Education of Gifted and Talented Children and Youth) 

under the terms of those awards, consistent with the transition authority provided by the ESSA. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 footnote2016 Footnote2017 footnote

Amount for new awards $4,036 $2,369 0

Amount for continuation awards 4,428 8,631 $11,000

Amount for supplemental awards 343 0 0

Peer review of new award applications 67 TBD 10

National Research Center for the 

Education of Gifted and Talented 

Children and Youth 1,126 1,000 1,000

______________

1 As of February 2016, the Department had not yet determined whether to make new awards in fiscal year 2016 

through a new competition or by funding down the slate of applicants from the prior year’s competition.

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

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

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the ESSA (section 8601(c)) and would provide the same 

flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Department did not reserve funds from the Javits Gifted and Talented 

Education program under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

F-125
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Javits gifted and talented education

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

The Department has established three performance measures for Javits Gifted and Talented 

Education focusing on the quality of project designs, professional development, and academic 

achievement of targeted student populations. The Department reports data for these measures 

twice over the grant period (at the middle and end of the period) after convening an expert panel 

of scientists and practitioners to review information from a sample of annual performance 

reports and self-evaluations prepared by grantees. The first data reports for the 2014 cohort 

(which received grants for up to 5 years) are expected to be available in late 2017. The first 

data reports for the 2015 and 2016 cohorts, which received 3-year grants focusing on 

professional development, will be submitted at a later date.

F-126
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Preschool for all

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority (mandatory):

2016 2017 Change

0 $1,299,982 +$1,299,982

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administration’s 2017 budget includes significant new investments that will establish a 

continuum of high-quality early learning through kindergarten entry. The signature program in 

this effort is Preschool for All, a proposed $75 billion mandatory investment over 10 years, 

beginning with $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2017. This groundbreaking proposal calls for a new 

Federal-State partnership that would build upon existing State systems to provide all low- and 

moderate-income 4-year-olds with high-quality, publicly funded preschool, while also 

encouraging the expansion of these programs to include children from middle class families. In 

addition, Preschool for All would promote access to full-day kindergarten and high-quality early 

learning programs for children under the age of 4.

Preschool for All funds would be used to improve outcomes for children by expanding the 

number and availability of high-quality preschool programs and improving the quality of existing 

programs. The definition of high-quality preschool, based on nationally recognized standards, 

includes, at a minimum, the following elements: (1) high-quality staff requirements, including a 

bachelor’s degree for teachers; (2) professional development for teachers and staff; (3) low 

staff-child ratios and small class sizes; (4) a full-day program; (5) developmentally appropriate, 

culturally and linguistically responsive instruction and evidence-based curricula and learning 

environments that are aligned with the State early learning and development standards; 

(6) inclusion of children with disabilities to ensure access to and full participation in all 

opportunities, as well as individual accommodations and supports for children; (7) instructional 

staff salaries that are comparable to those for K–12 instructional staff; (8) ongoing program 

evaluation to ensure continuous improvement; (9) onsite comprehensive services for children; 

and (10) evidence-based health and safety standards.

To receive a Preschool for All formula grant, States would have to demonstrate that they have: 

(1) early learning and development standards across the essential domains of school readiness, 

(2) high-quality program standards, (3) requirements for teacher and staff qualifications, and 

(4) the ability to link preschool data with K–12 data. In addition, each State would be required to 

submit a plan that describes how it will provide access, within a reasonable time period, to 

high-quality preschool with open enrollment for all 4-year-olds from families with incomes at or 

below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line. If a State opts to expand participation in 

high-quality preschool for children with family incomes above 200 percent of the Federal poverty 

F-127
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Preschool for all

line, its plan should also describe its expansion strategy and goals. Each State’s plan would 

also address how it would develop and implement the infrastructure that is crucial to ensuring 

program quality, such as a system that evaluates, rates, and makes public the quality of 

programs and a comprehensive early learning assessment system. Since a participating State 

would be permitted to expand federally funded activities once it has made preschool universally 

available to 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families, the plan would also address 

how the State will promote access to full-day kindergarten and, if full-day kindergarten is already 

provided, how the State will extend high-quality preschool to 3-year-olds from low- and 

moderate-income families.

Funds would be awarded through a cost-sharing model under which the Federal Government 

would assume a significant share of the program costs in the first years of the program with 

States gradually assuming more responsibility over time. Each State that receives a grant 

would be required to contribute non-Federal matching funds and would be eligible for a reduced 

(incentive) match rate if it has a plan to serve additional children from families with incomes 

above 200 percent of the Federal poverty line in high-quality public preschool programs. 

Allocations to States would be based on each State’s relative share of 4-year olds from families 

at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Program funds would support preschool 

for 4-year-olds with family incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. The 

allocations to States would also take into account other factors, such as the level of program 

participation and the estimated cost of the activities specified in the State plan. 

During the first 4 years of the program, States would be permitted to reserve up to 20 percent of 

their funds for quality improvement efforts and an additional one half of 1 percent for 

administrative costs. States would be required to subgrant no less than 80 percent of their 

awards to local educational agencies (LEAs) or other early learning providers in partnership with 

LEAs. Examples of other early learning providers include child care centers, community-based 

organizations, and private providers. If a State does not reserve funds for quality improvement 

efforts, it would be required to use not less than 99 percent of its allocation to make subgrants to 

eligible local entities.

Each State that receives grant funds would be required to maintain fiscal support of its Statefunded preschool programs. Additionally, Preschool for All funds must be used to supplement 

and not supplant other Federal, State, and local public funds expended on public preschool 

programs in the State.

The Administration’s proposal includes set-asides of one-half of 1 percent for both the 

Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and the Outlying Areas; each of these 

entities would have to meet the same eligibility requirements as those established for States in 

order to receive Federal funding. The Administration’s proposal also would allow the 

Department to reserve up to 1 percent, not to exceed $30 million, for national activities. 

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is proposing to authorize $75 billion in mandatory funding over 10 years for 

Preschool for All, including $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2017 to support the first year of this 

F-128
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Preschool for all

Federal-State partnership. The $1.3 billion proposal is based on estimated State participation 

rates, costs of high-quality preschool per child, and expected State expansion of preschool 

services. The Department estimates that 15 States would receive grant awards in the first year, 

with all States expected to qualify for grants by year 3. 

Research findings provide strong justification for Federal investment in high-quality preschool 

programs. Children who attend high-quality preschool are better prepared for school, less likely 

to be retained in grade, score higher on reading and math assessments in the elementary 

grades, and are more likely to graduate from high school than children who do not attend such 

programs. Furthermore, these benefits are particularly strong for children from low-income 

families. 

In addition to the educational gains, investment in high-quality preschool provides economic

benefits. Evidence shows that for every $1 invested in high-quality preschool, taxpayers saved 

an estimated average of $8.60 in future costs due to reduction in remedial education costs, 

increased labor productivity, and reduced crime.1

States have led the way in translating this research into action. As of 2014, 41 States and the 

District of Columbia have at least one publicly-funded State preschool program in place. 

Despite these efforts, the Department estimates that more than one-third of 4-year-olds from 

low-income families are not enrolled in any preschool program, and the high costs of private 

preschool and lack of public programs also narrow options for middle-class families. Moreover, 

access to publicly funded programs varies significantly across States and localities, ranging 

from no children served in some areas to near universal coverage in others.2

 

The quality of existing programs also varies widely among providers. Fewer than 3 in 10 

4-year-olds are enrolled in high-quality programs. Research consistently demonstrates that only 

high-quality preschool delivers school readiness benefits for children, which is why the 

Department’s Preschool for All proposal includes requirements for quality, based on nationally 

recognized standards that research shows can lead to closing the opportunity gap between 

children from lower-income families and their peers from higher-income families.

The Preschool for All program is a key part of the Department’s overall strategy to provide 

children with a high-quality foundation that will prepare them for success in school and in life. 

To support this goal, the Administration’s request would bolster high-quality programs for infants 

and toddlers through significant new investments in Preschool Development Grants, child care, 

and home visiting within HHS.

1 Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. A., Yavitz, A. (2009). The rate of return to the High/Scope 

Perry Preschool Program. “National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 15471.” Retrieved from 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w15471 2 2012 Yearbook, National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers, NJ.

F-129

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Preschool for all

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Measures 2017

Amount for new awards $1,260,982

Number of new awards 12–18

Set-Aside for the Outlying Areas $6,500

Set-Aside for BIE $6,500

National Activities (including technical assistance and evaluation) $26,000

Total, Preschool for All Grants $1,299,982

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department will develop performance measures for the Preschool for All program. At a 

minimum, these measures will track a State’s progress in: (1) increased school readiness; 

(2) decreased educational gaps; (3) decreased placement in special education programs and 

services; and (4) decreased need for remediation in the early elementary grades.

F-130
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

RESPECT: Best job in the world

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

0 $1,000,000 +$1,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The RESPECT: Best Job in the World program would aim to better recognize and support 

educators in high-need schools that often struggle to attract and retain talent. Providing all 

students with equal access to effective teachers will continue to be a challenge until we

transform the job of working in high-need schools into one in which talented educators of 

demonstrated effectiveness aspire to work. This proposal would target the core barriers of poor 

human capital management and unsupportive working environments in under-resourced 

schools to create significant positive change. The program would award competitive grants of 

up to $250 million to State educational agencies (SEAs), which in turn would make subgrants to 

local educational agencies (LEAs) with schools identified for comprehensive support and 

improvement under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Eligible LEAs would 

undertake a needs assessment, including educator as well as community and stakeholder input, 

aimed at identifying incentives and policies for attracting, rewarding, and retaining effective 

teachers and school leaders and creating more supportive school environments with greater 

opportunities for students and teachers alike. 

Funds would be available for use over a 5-year period, and could be used to (1) significantly

increase compensation for effective teachers in high-need schools and provide opportunities for 

effective teachers to move up the salary scale and to take on greater responsibilities through 

expanded leadership, mentoring, or coaching positions; (2) provide teachers and school leaders 

the resources, time, and data to develop and implement meaningful activities that will improve 

teaching and student outcomes, such as establishing teaching teams to analyze and discuss 

student performance data, teacher-led developmental experiences for other educators, more 

teacher collaboration and planning time, and extended student learning opportunities, based on 

educators’ assessment of the highest leverage activities; and (3) create working conditions and 

school climates that put educators in the best position to succeed, by providing them and their 

students with the tools and resources they need, such as improving access to educational 

technology, adding counseling or other student services, or reducing class sizes. 

Subgrantees would be required to collect data, including teacher and school leader survey data, 

to support continuous improvement during the grant period, and to conduct rigorous, 

independent evaluations of their projects to build evidence of effective practices. Applicants 

also must develop plans for sustaining key activities beyond the term of the grant.

F-131
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

RESPECT: Best job in the world

The Department would reserve up to 1 percent of appropriated funds to provide technical 

assistance and share best practices related to teacher compensation, career ladders, 

collaboration time, and improving working conditions. 

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

Giving our neediest students an excellent education is critical to our nation’s future, so we must 

make teaching in a high-need school the best job in the world. Moving to work in a high-need 

school should be an invitation to a great place to work and a step up the career ladder—a 

reward for excellence and a path to continued career success.

The Administration proposes $1 billion in one-time mandatory funding for the “RESPECT: Best 

Job in the World” (Best Job) initiative, which would support a nationwide effort to change the 

ability of high-need schools to attract and retain talented, committed, and accomplished 

teachers. The goal is to support comprehensive, locally developed, teacher-led efforts to 

transform up to 200 of these schools into the best places to begin and advance a career in 

education while significantly improving outcomes for students. The program also would include 

strong evaluation requirements aimed at building the evidence base for effective strategies that 

could be replicated by non-grantees, consistent with the requirements of Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act for the use of evidence-based practices in schools identified for 

comprehensive support and improvement.

The proposal builds on the Administration’s Recognizing Education Success, Professional 

Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT) Project, which was developed following 

extensive outreach with educators and listening sessions in schools and communities across 

the country that identified the highest priority needs for transforming the teaching profession. 

RESPECT proposed a focus on improving preparation and early career assistance; ensuring 

that educators have opportunities to develop, advance, and lead as they transition to instruction 

aligned to more rigorous standards; and improving the work environment through investments in 

coaching and feedback, collaborative time, and teacher leadership .

The RESPECT initiative was based on a commitment to meet the needs of teachers and school 

leaders at important stages of their careers, empowering them to rise in their profession and 

take on new responsibilities and leadership roles. For the 2017 Budget, the new RESPECT: 

Best Job in the World proposal reflects additional feedback from educators across the country 

as well as lessons from other Department efforts, including Teach to Lead, State educator 

equity plans, and competitive grant programs like the Teacher Incentive Fund. More 

specifically, the Administration believes that the only way to meet the needs of at-risk students 

in high-need schools is to build on activities envisioned by RESPECT while also seeking to 

fundamentally change the job of teaching itself to attract and keep a diverse set of talented 

educators in those schools. 

Best Job is intended to respond to strong evidence that our lowest-performing schools are 

among the least attractive places for teachers and principals to work. Between the 2011–2012 

and 2012–2013 school years, 22 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools either moved to 

F-132
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

RESPECT: Best job in the world

another school or left the profession, a rate that is roughly 70 percent higher than in low-poverty 

schools.1 In addition to higher turnover, one study found that four times as many math and 

science teachers transfer from high-poverty schools to low-poverty schools than transfer from 

low-poverty schools to high-poverty schools. 2

 Nationally, about 15 percent of teachers change 

schools or leave the profession each year.3 Estimates suggest that these losses cost States and 

school districts up to $2 billion annually; consequently, reducing teacher turnover and the exit of 

effective teachers from the profession will benefit students and save States money.

4

Lack of empowerment is a key issue that can make it challenging to attract and retain effective 

teachers. Among former teachers now in another profession, 59 percent reported that they had 

more influence over workplace policies and practices than when they were in the classroom, 

and 58 percent reported better autonomy and control over their own work. Less than 12 percent 

reported feeling more empowered in these areas in their teaching jobs.

5

High-need schools are also often under-resourced, making it a struggle to provide either the 

supportive and stable environment needed to promote career development or the materials, 

technology, and wrap-around services that wealthier schools enjoy. Teachers frequently

express a desire to put the needs of students first, ahead of their own, and want influence over 

how student needs are met. But they also want better conditions for their students and for 

themselves, including leaders who share their focus on student needs; time to collaborate with 

each other; and supports and services they and their students need to succeed. 

These two conditions often found at high-need schools—the lack of a stable, effective teaching 

force, and under-resourced schools—combine to undermine the American promise of equal 

educational opportunity for all students. Rather than serving as a vehicle to break the cycle of 

poverty, these schools perpetuate that cycle.

The Best Job initiative would provide participating districts with resources to address these two 

conditions and help. More specifically, funds would be targeted to (1) creating advancement 

opportunities for effective teachers in high-need schools, (2) promoting equitable access to 

effective teaching for all students, and (3) leveraging teacher leadership to improve working 

conditions and create school climates conducive to teaching and learning. Each of these 

strategies is aligned with research, the equity goals of the ESEA, and longtime demands for 

greater teacher voice in designing effective education reforms.

1 2012–2013 NCES Teacher Follow-up Survey 

https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/TFS1213_2014077_cf1n_002.asp; the percentage of “movers” 

and “leavers” in schools with 75 percent or more of students approved for free or reduced-price lunch was 

22 percent, compared to 12.8 percent in schools with 0-34 percent of students approved for free or 

reduced-price lunch. 2 Richard Ingersoll et al.(2012). http://epa.sagepub.com/content/34/4/435 3 NCES, Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (2015), 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015337 4 Mariana Haynes, Alliance for Excellent Education (2014), http://all4ed.org/reports-factsheets/pathto-equity/ 5 2012–2013 NCES Teacher Follow-up Survey (2014),

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014077

F-133

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

RESPECT: Best job in the world

Creating Advancement Opportunities for Effective Teachers in High-Need Schools

By significantly increasing compensation through a combination of initial salary, accelerated 

salary progression, teacher leadership positions, and bonuses for effective teachers to work in 

the highest-need schools, this proposal will create strong incentives for our best educators to 

put their skills to work on behalf of the students with the greatest need for effective teaching and 

learning. This strategy forgoes the incremental salary increases and bonuses that have 

characterized most compensation-based reforms in favor of more aggressive action, such as 

the Leadership Initiative for Teachers (LIFT) system implemented by District of Columbia Public 

Schools (DCPS). DCPS has increased the retention of effective teachers,1 contributing to 

significant gains in the District’s student achievement as well as large decreases in achievement 

gaps.2 Best Job would support similarly aggressive compensation-based strategies to attract 

and retain effective teachers in high-need schools by providing compensation commensurate 

with the challenge and importance of significantly improving student outcomes in those schools.

Promoting Equitable Access to Effective Teachers for All Students

While current law requires equitable access to effective educators, students of color from lowincome backgrounds are more likely to be taught by less experienced3 and less-effective 

teachers.4 In addition, research suggests not only that teachers who leave schools attended by 

such students tend to be replaced by less-effective teachers, but also that turnover itself has a 

disruptive effect on student performance that is particularly strong in low-performing schools 

with more black students.5

Key Administration initiatives like Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants supported 

efforts to increase the number of great teachers and leaders in high-poverty and low-performing

schools. Most recently, the Department reinforced ESEA teacher equity requirements by 

launching the Excellent Educators for All initiative, which called on States to identify gaps in 

access to excellent educators and develop plans to close those gaps. Many States have 

proposed various strategies to attract and retain effective educators to high-need schools, and 

the Best Job initiative would provide significant resources to support meaningful implementation 

and evaluation of those strategies in the districts with the greatest need for effective teachers 

and school leaders. 

1 Dee, Thomas & Wyckoff, James, (2013) “Incentives, Selection, and Teacher Performance: Evidence 

from IMPACT,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 19529; 2 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), District Profiles and 2011 and 2013 

Assessments. 

3 2011-12 NCES Schools and Staffing Survey 

https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013314_t12n_003.asp ; 13.9 percent of teachers in 

high-poverty schools (defined in footnote #1) had less than 4 years of experience, compared to 

9.3 percent of teachers in low-poverty schools 4 NCEE Evaluation Brief (2014) http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144010/pdf/20144010.pdf 5 Ronfeldt et al. (2013) http://cepa.stanford.edu/content/how-teacher-turnover-harms-studentachievement 

F-134

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

RESPECT: Best job in the world

Leveraging Teacher Leadership to Improve Working Conditions and School Climate

The Department has demonstrated great success in identifying, learning from, and supporting 

teacher-leaders, engaging more than 3,000 teachers from across the country and facilitating the 

creation of over 170 action plans for improvements at the school, district, State, and National 

level. In particular, teachers have increasingly called for greater input in selecting appropriate 

professional development that meets their needs in the classroom and for leadership 

opportunities that recognize their wisdom and experience. The Best Job initiative recognizes 

this demand for “teacher voice” in developing and implementing effective reforms in our schools, 

in part by incorporating a needs assessment with significant teacher input into the application 

and planning process for local subgrants. This approach would provide educators—along with 

parents and community members—a meaningful role in determining the best use of program 

funds to both improve professional practice and help make schools great places to work. 

Possible strategies include teacher time banks that would provide common planning time for 

teachers, mentoring, or coaching by effective veteran teachers, or release time for teachers to 

attend high-quality professional development. Projects also could include the creation of hybrid 

positions for teacher-leaders to stay in the classroom while taking on additional responsibilities 

at the school, district, or State level. Teachers in funded schools also would help identify 

improvements in supports and services for students, such as increased access to counseling or 

wrap-around services designed to meet students’ non-academic needs.

Such strategies recognize that great teachers are more likely to stay if they are granted greater 

autonomy to foster their professional growth and creativity to more effectively meet the needs of 

their students. A recent study found that the strongest factor for retention of mathematics 

teachers in high-poverty, high-minority schools was the degree of individual classroom 

autonomy held by teachers. Net of other factors such as salaries, schools with less classroom 

autonomy lose math teachers at a far higher rate than other teachers.1

 The Best Job proposal 

recognizes that collaboration and consultancy among teachers grappling with the various 

challenges of high-need schools is one of the most effective forms of professional learning, and 

that creating the working conditions to promote this type of meaningful learning will lead to 

improved student outcomes. 

For example, Mission High in San Francisco provides paid time for teachers to plan intellectually 

engaging lessons together, design assessments to measure a broad range of skills, and 

analyze student outcomes to inform instruction. Teachers have used this extra time to make 

videos of students talking about what kind of teaching helped them succeed and to study 

research about how integrated classes, personalized teaching, and culturally relevant 

curriculum can increase achievement. Successful teachers at the school, rather than external 

consultants, are able to coach other teachers who need help. The result has been better 

outcomes for their students, including increases in college enrollment, graduation rate, and 

student satisfaction. This type of school-based professional development typically is difficult to 

implement and sustain in U.S. schools since our teachers have heavier teaching loads than 

educators in many other countries, with few hours dedicated to their own learning and 

1 Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics and 

science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 435-464.

F-135

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

RESPECT: Best job in the world

leadership. By contrast, teachers in Finland, Singapore and South Korea spend from 15 to 

25 hours each week working to improve their craft.1 The teacher time banks that could be 

supported through Best Job would ensure that teachers in high-need schools have similar 

opportunities to improve instruction, tailor support to student needs, and increase their school 

leadership roles. Such benefits have been shown to increase retention and job satisfaction 

amongst teachers.

This proposal will encourage schools to work collaboratively with teachers to address and 

improve the barriers to attracting and keeping the best educators in the schools where they are 

needed most, resulting in the transformation of some of the least-equipped and hardest-to-staff 

schools into destinations for educators and students alike.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017

Amount for new awards

$990,000

Number of new awards 5–10

Range of new awards $50,000–$250,000

Number of schools served 200

Technical assistance, training, outreach, and evaluation $10,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

RESPECT: Best Job in the World Initiative. The new goals and indicators would be aligned 

with information collected through State Report Cards under the Supporting Effective Instruction 

State Grants program and focus on measures concerning educator recruitment, support, 

retention of effective educators, working conditions, student supports, and equitable access to 

effective educators.

1 Rizga, Kristina (2015). “Why so many teachers quit, and how to fix that.” 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0823-rizga-mission-high-teacher-retention-20150823-

story.html

F-136

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Computer science for all

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority (mandatory):

PP2016 2017 Change

0 $2,000,000 +$2,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administration’s fiscal year 2017 budget includes significant new investments to ensure 

access for all students to high-quality instruction in computer science and related science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects. Central among these investments 

is the proposed Computer Science for All program. Supported by $4 billion in mandatory 

funding over 3 years, Computer Science for All is designed to stimulate and advance 

comprehensive State efforts to offer rigorous coursework in computer science (including 

computer programming and related skills such as computational thinking) to all students in 

preschool through grade 12, with a focus on serving students in under-resourced schools and 

communities (including in rural and urban areas) and improving participation by student groups 

historically underrepresented in STEM fields. Computer Science for All would build on its 

partner discretionary proposal, Computer Science for All Development grants, which would 

support efforts by local educational agencies to identify and further develop effective computer 

science instructional models for replication across the Nation. 

Computer Science for All grants would be awarded to States in amounts based in part on State 

shares of funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. To 

receive a grant, a State must submit a high-quality plan that includes: (1) ensuring that all high 

schools in the State offer at least one rigorous compute science course by the end of the grant 

period, which may be part of broader efforts to expand and improve STEM instruction in those 

schools; (2) ensuring that local educational agencies in the State develop, or adopt, and 

implement a rigorous curriculum and progression of high-quality instruction and other learning 

opportunities in preschool through grade 8 that integrate principles of computer science, 

include instructional practices supported by evidence of effectiveness, and lay the groundwork 

for academic success in high school; (3) effectively preparing and further developing computer 

science teachers and support staff; and (4) increasing access for underserved and 

disadvantaged students to other rigorous and advanced courses and programs, including 

Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses and dual or concurrent 

enrollment programs. As part of their plans, States would develop ambitious annual targets for 

increasing the number of course offerings in computer science and related STEM subjects in 

schools, which must include targets for reducing or eliminating gaps in offerings in underserved 

communities, as well as goals for increasing successful student completion of those courses, 

including goals for addressing gaps in completion for historically underserved groups such as 

girls, minorities, low-income students, and students with disabilities. States would also be 

F-137
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Computer science for all

encouraged to partner with one or more institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, 

and other public and private entities, including businesses and industry-affiliated organizations, 

to ensure alignment of their plans with expectations for college and careers, and leverage other 

Federal, State, and private resources to implement their projects. All States that submit 

approvable applications would receive an award.

States would receive grants for a period of up to 5 years, of which not more than 12 months 

may be used to refine and prepare to implement State plans, including by identifying and 

removing policy- or capacity-related barriers to implementation. Funds could be used during the 

implementation period to: (1) develop or acquire and implement course curricula and 

instructional materials aligned to the State’s challenging standards in science and mathematics 

including, at the high school level, for courses that enable students to earn college credit; 

(2) prepare effective teachers of computer science and related subjects; (3) recruit and hire 

instructional personnel as needed, including curriculum specialists; (4) provide ongoing 

professional development to ensure high-quality instruction, including through online and other 

alternative delivery methods; (5) acquire necessary equipment and technology infrastructure; 

(6) attract underserved students to computer science and other STEM offerings, including 

through mentoring; (7) disseminate information about effective instructional practices; and 

(8) prepare to sustain activities after the grant period ends. Funds could also be used to offer 

informal computer science experiences and to integrate principles of computer science into 

instruction in other subjects. States may also reserve up to 2 percent of funds for administrative 

costs.

The Administration’s proposal includes set-asides of one-half of 1 percent for both the 

Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and the Outlying Areas; each of these 

entities would need to meet the same eligibility requirements as those established for States in 

order to receive Federal funding. The Administration’s proposal also would allow the 

Department to reserve up to 2.5 percent for national activities including technical assistance, 

evaluation, and dissemination. 

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration proposes to authorize $4 billion in mandatory funding over 3 years for 

Computer Science for All, including $2 billion in fiscal year 2017 to provide funding for 

approximately 20 grants to States. One billion in mandatory dollars in each of fiscal years 

2018 and 2019 would be available for awards to remaining States that seek funds and submit 

high-quality plans. Funds would remain available for obligation by the Department through 

fiscal year 2020.

Providing access to computer science is a critical step for ensuring that our Nation remains 

competitive in the global economy and strengthens its cybersecurity. Today’s middle and high 

school students are tomorrow’s engineers, entrepreneurs, and leaders and must be equipped 

with strong computational skills and able to solve complex problems and counter growing 

cybersecurity threats. By rapidly expanding access to rigorous instruction in computer science 

and related STEM subjects, especially for underserved students, Computer Science for All 

F-138
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Computer science for all

would help provide the next generation with the rigorous and relevant education to meet these 

demands. 

Moreover, greater attention to and investment in computer science education is sorely needed. 

Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce projects that, by 2020, 

51 percent of STEM jobs will be in computer science-related fields.1

 If current trends continue, 

1.4 million computer science-related jobs will be available over the next ten years, but according 

to the Bureau of Labor Statistics only 400,000 American computer science graduates will 

emerge with the skills to needed to fill those jobs. This lack of skilled college graduates can be 

attributed, in part, by a dearth of opportunities to engage in computer science in elementary and 

secondary school. According to the National Center for Women and Information Technology, 

less than one-quarter of students nationwide has access to rigorous computer science courses.2

 

In light of findings such as these, it is clear we must redouble our efforts to prepare students and 

produce a workforce capable of sustaining and growing this critical sector of the economy.

Computer science skills are important not only for the technology sector but also for a growing 

number of industries that rely on computer software to improve their products and services, 

including transportation, healthcare, education, and financial services. Moreover, computer 

science instruction can help foster the problem-solving and analytical skills needed in many 

other disciplines and careers. Not surprisingly, parents increasingly recognize the importance of 

computer science: 9 out of 10 parents surveyed by Gallop say they want computer science 

taught at their child’s school.3

Computer Science for All would also help address persistent equity gaps in the classroom. In 

November 2015 the College Board affirmed a continuing trend of disproportionately low 

participation by girls and minorities in the AP Computer Science exam, with just 22 percent of 

participants being girls and 13 percent minorities excluding Asian Americans.4

 In addition, 

according to a Gallup report commissioned by Google, Black and lower-income secondary 

school students were significantly less likely than their peers to report having computer science 

course offerings at their schools.5

The Computer Science for All proposal seeks to capitalize on existing State efforts to tackle 

these problems. For example, in the past 2 years, 17 States have changed their requirements 

to allow computer science to count towards high school graduation. In addition, last year 

Arkansas enacted legislation requiring all high schools to offer a computer science course. 

1 See https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/stem-complete.pdf. 2 See http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/12/prweb10219767.htm. 3 See http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/images-of-computer-science-report.pdf. 4 See http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2015/11/no_africanamerican_students_2015_AP_computer_science_exam_nine_states.html. 5 See http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/searching-for-computer-science_report.pdf.

F-139

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Computer science for all

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017

Amount for new awards $1,930,000

Range of awards $10,000–$500,000

Average award $96,500

Number of awards 15–25

Amount for Outlying Areas $10,000

Amount for BIE $10,000

National activities $50,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

activities that receive support under this program, based in part on the targets and goals 

established by grantees. The development of these measures would build on our experience in 

creating performance measures for other programs, and the Department would also seek to 

align program measures for Computer Science for All with measures for related programs.

F-140