Department of Education

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ..............................................................................C-3

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................C-4

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................C-6

Appropriations History.............................................................................................................C-7

Significant Items in FY 2018 Appropriations Reports...............................................................C-8

Summary of Request ..............................................................................................................C-9

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants.....................................................................C-11

21st Century community learning centers.........................................................................C-20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student support and academic enrichment grants ............................................................C-65

State Tables*

State tables reflecting final 2017 allocations and 2018 and 2019 estimates are posted on the 

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

C-1

Appropriations Language

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized by part B of Title I and part B of 

title V of the ESEA; the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; the Compact of Free 

Association Amendments Act of 2003; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, $645,214,000, of 

which $621,940,000 shall become available on July 1, 2019, and remain available through 

September 30, 2020:1 Provided, That $16,699,000 shall be available to carry out the 

Supplemental Education Grants program for the Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands:2 Provided further, That the Secretary may reserve up to 

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

implementation of these grants:3 Provided further, That $175,840,000 shall be for part B of 

title V.4

NOTES

A full-year 2018 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, 

the budget assumes this account is operating under the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division D of

P.L. 115–56, as amended). The amounts included for 2018 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing 

resolution.

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

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

C-2

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

... of which $621,940,000 shall become 

available on July 1, 2019, and remain 

available through September 30, 2020:

This language provides for a portion of funds 

to be appropriated on a forward-funded basis 

for State Assessments, Education for 

Homeless Children and Youths, and Rural 

Education.

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

available to carry out the Supplemental 

Education Grants program for the Federated 

States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands:

This language specifies the funding level for 

Supplemental Education Grants to the 

Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands

3 Provided further, That the Secretary may 

reserve up to 5 percent of the amount 

referred to in the previous proviso to provide 

technical assistance in the implementation of 

these grants:

This language allows the Secretary to 

reserve up to 5 percent of Supplemental 

Education Grants funds to provide technical 

assistance for these grants.

4 Provided further, That $175,840,000 shall 

be for part B of title V.

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Rural Education Achievement Program

and overrides the authorization level.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-3

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2017

2018 

Annualized CR 2019

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation............................................ $4,397,148 0 $645,214

Annualized CR (P.L. 115–56)................... 0 $4,390,047 0

Total, discretionary appropriation......... 4,397,148 4,390,047 645,214

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year .......... -1,670,022 -1,681,441 0

Advance from prior year........................... 1,681,441 1,670,022 1,681,441

Total, budget authority ......................... 4,408,567 4,378,628 2,326,655
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-4

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2018 Annualized CR........................................................................ $4,390,047

2019.................................................................................................. 645,214

Net change............................................................... -3,744,833

Increases:

2018

Annualized CR

Change 

from base

Program:

Increase funding to reflect the President’s Budget request 

to fund State Assessments, Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths, Training and Advisory Services, Rural 

Education, and Supplemental Education Grants at FY 2017 

enacted levels. This amount would restore cuts resulting 

from the 0.6791 percent across-the-board reduction 

included in the FY 2018 Annualized CR Level. $640,832 +$4,382

Decreases:

2018

Annualized CR

Change 

from base

Program:

Eliminate funding for the Supporting Effective Instruction 

State grants because it duplicates activities that may be 

supported by other Federal programs as well as State, 

local, and private funding. $2,053,287 -$2,053,287

Eliminate funding for the 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers program because it duplicates activities that may 

be supported by other Federal programs as well as State, 

local, and private funding. 1,183,580 -1,183,580

Eliminate funding for the Native Hawaiian Education 

program because it duplicates activities that may be 

supported by other Federal programs as well as State, 

local, and private funding. 33,170 -33,170

Eliminate funding for the Alaska Native Education program

because it duplicates activities that may be supported by 

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

funding. 32,233 -32,233

Eliminate funding for the Comprehensive Centers program 

because funding from other programs, such as Title I

Grants to Local Educational Agencies, can be used for 

similar services. 49,661 -49,661
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Summary of Changes—continued

C-5

Decreases:

2018

Annualized CR

Change 

from base

Eliminate funding for the Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants program because it duplicates activities 

that may be supported by other Federal programs as well 

as State, local, and private funding. $397,284 -$397,284

Subtotal, decreases -3,749,215

Net change -3,744,833
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-6

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2018

Authorized

footnote

2018

Annualized CR

footnote

2019

Authorized

footnote

2019

Request

footnote

Supporting effective instruction State grants (ESEA II-A) $2,295,830 $2,053,287 $2,295,830 0

21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) 1,100,000 1,183,580 1,100,000 0

State assessments (ESEA I-B, sections 1201-1203) 378,000 366,593 378,000 $369,100

Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA 

Title VII-B) 85,000 76,477 85,000 77,000

Native Hawaiian Education (ESEA VI-B) 32,397 33,170 32,397 0

Alaska Native education equity (ESEA VI-C) 31,453 32,233 31,453 0

Training and advisory services (CRA IV) Indefinite 6,530 Indefinite 6,575

Rural education (ESEA V-B) 169,840 174,6461 169,840 175,8401

Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free 

Association Act) 21,4922 16,586 21,7792 16,699

Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) 03 49,661 03 0

Student support and academic enrichment grants 

(ESEA IV-A-1) 1,650,000 397,284 1,650,000 0

Unfunded authorizations

UA Family engagement in education programs 

(ESEA IV-E)

 

10,000 0 10,000 0

Total definite authorization 5,774,012 5,774,299

Total appropriation 4,390,047 645,214

1 The funds appropriated to carry out Title V, Part B are to be distributed equally between Subparts 1 and 2. 2 Reflects amount initially authorized in fiscal year 2005, adjusted for inflation in accordance with the authorizing statute, which requires such adjustments 

through fiscal year 2023.

3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009; no appropriations language or reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2019.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-7

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

2010 $5,182,181 $5,244,644 $5,197,3161 $5,228,444

(2010 Advance for 2011) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2011 1,890,779 5,221,4442 5,388,1731 4,593,8413

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

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

2012 1,664,979 4,332,1024 4,570,1454 4,544,596

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

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

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

2014 1,075,559 N/A6 4,676,8621 4,397,391

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

2015 966,923 N/A6 4,402,6747 4,402,671

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

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

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

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

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

2018 697,321 2,369,964 10 4,458,567 10 4,390,047 10

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

2019 645,214

(2019 Advance for 2020) (0)

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

2 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 3 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011 (P.L. 112-10). 4 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects 

Senate Committee action only. 5 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 6 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 7 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only. 8 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 114th Congress only through the House Committee and Senate Committee. 9 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 appropriation 

bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. 10 The level for the House reflect floor action on an Omnibus appropriation bill; the Senate allowance reflects

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

Resolution level.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-8C-8

Significant Items in FY 2018 Appropriations Reports

Alaska Native Education

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

tribes, Alaska Native regional non-profits, and Alaska Native corporations have 

the maximum opportunity to successfully compete for grants under this program 

by providing these entities multiple opportunities for technical assistance in 

developing successful applications for these funds, both in Alaska and via 

various forms of telecommunications. Further, the Committee continues to direct 

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

represent a significant proportion of peer reviewers for grant applications 

submitted under this program.

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

assistance to ensure that Alaska Native tribes, Alaska Native regional nonprofits, 

and Alaska Native corporations have the maximum opportunity to successfully 

compete for grants under this program.

Rural Education Assistance Program

Senate: The Committee recognizes that the Department’s new application requirement 

for local education agencies to access Rural Education Achievement Program 

(REAP) funding in fiscal year 2017 prevented some eligible LEAs from accessing 

grant funding under this program. The Committee directs the Department to 

simplify the REAP application process, eliminate unnecessary administrative 

burdens, and directly engage with eligible LEAs and other relevant stakeholders 

to ensure that the Department’s requirements accommodate the unique needs of 

these small, rural, and remote schools.

Response: The Department will continue its outreach to REAP-eligible LEAs and other rural 

stakeholders with an openness to improvements, including ones related to the 

Small, Rural School Achievement program’s application requirements and 

process. 

Comprehensive Centers

Senate: In selecting priorities for a new cohort of comprehensive centers, the Committee 

continues to direct the Department to recognize the unique challenges, 

emphasized in ESSA, affecting rural schools. The Committee strongly 

encourages the Department to establish at least one university-led center in a 

State with a significant percentage of students in rural schools. Such a center 

could focus on rural education and provide assistance to rural districts that serve 

high poverty and minority students.

Response: The Department recognizes the challenges facing rural schools and in planning 

for any future competition will assess strategies for best meeting their needs. 

Institutions of higher education are eligible applicants for Comprehensive Center 

grants, along with research organizations, institutions, agencies, and regional 

entities.
C-9

Summary of R equ est

Click here for accessible version 

Summar y of R equest

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2019 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

School Improvement Programs

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

Annual appropriation D 374,389 371,846 0 (371,846) -100.00%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 1 D 1,670,022 1,681,441 0 (1,681,441) -100.00%

Subtotal D 2,044,411 2,053,287 0 (2,053,287) -100.00%

 2. 21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) D 1,191,673 1,183,580 0 (1,183,580) -100.00%

 3. State assessments (ESEA I-B, section 1201-1203) D 369,100 366,593 369,100 2,507 0.68%

 4. Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA Title VII-B) D 77,000 76,477 77,000 523 0.68%

 5. Native Hawaiian education (ESEA VI-B) D 33,397 33,170 0 (33,170) -100.00%

 6. Alaska Native education (ESEA VI-C) D 32,453 32,233 0 (32,233) -100.00%

 7. Training and advisory services (CRA IV) D 6,575 6,530 6,575 45 0.69%

 8. Rural education (ESEA V-B) D 175,840 174,646 175,840 1,194 0.68%

 9. Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free Association Act) D 16,699 16,586 16,699 113 0.68%

 10. Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) D 50,000 49,661 0 (49,661) -100.00%

 11. Student support and academic enrichment grants (ESEA IV-A) D 400,000 397,284 0 (397,284) -100.00%

Total, Appropriation D 4,397,148 4,390,047 645,214 (3,744,833) -85.30%

Total, Budget authority D 4,408,567 4,378,628 2,326,655 (2,051,973) -46.86%

Current 2,727,126 2,708,606 645,214 (2,063,392) -76.18%

Prior year's advance 1 1,681,441 1,670,022 1,681,441 11,419 0.68%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 The Advance for succeeding fiscal year shown in the 2017 Appropriation column and the Prior year's advance shown in the 2018 Annualized CR column reflects the 0.6791 percent across-the-board reduction

authorized by P.L. 115-56, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018, as amended.

2019 President's Budget 

Category Compared to 2018 Annualized CR 

Code

2017 

Appropriation 

2018 

Annualized CR

2019 

President's 

Budget
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-10

Summary of Request

The programs in the School Improvement Programs (SIP) account support State and local 

efforts to implement the reforms and educational improvements called for in the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA). More specifically, the activities in this account provide flexible 

resources to pay the costs of developing and administering student achievement assessments

and address the particular educational needs of special populations. A full-year fiscal year 2018 

appropriation was not enacted at the time the fiscal year 2019 Budget was prepared; therefore, 

the Budget assumes the Department is operating under the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018

(Division D of P.L 115–56, as amended). The amounts included for fiscal year 2018 reflect the 

annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

The Administration is requesting approximately $645.2 million for programs in this account, 

including:

• $369.1 million for State Assessments to help States continue to administer aligned 

assessment systems as part of their ongoing implementation of the Every Student Succeeds 

Act, which reauthorized the ESEA in 2015 but will be fully implemented during the 2019-

2020 school year. 

• $77.0 million for Education for Homeless Children and Youths to provide educational and 

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

school.

• $6.6 million for Training and Advisory Services to support regional equity assistance 

centers that provide technical assistance to school districts in addressing educational equity 

related to issues of race, sex, national origin, and religion.

• $175.8 million for Rural Education to provide resources to rural LEAs and schools that 

often face unique challenges in implementing ESEA.

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

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

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

Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003.

The Budget request would fund the State Assessments, Education for Homeless Children and 

Youths, Training and Advisory Services, Rural Education, and Supplemental Education Grants

programs at the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. This level would restore cuts resulting from the 

0.6791 percent across-the-board reduction included in the FY 2018 Annualized CR Level.

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

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

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

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

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

C-11

Acti viti es:

Summar y of R equest

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $2,295,830

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

Annual appropriation $371,846 0 -$371,846

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

Total 2,053,287 0 -2,053,287

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

Supporting Effective Instruction (SEI) State Grants, previously known as the Improving Teacher 

Quality State Grants program, provide formula grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), 

which subgrant most funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) to increase student 

achievement by improving the quality and effectiveness of teachers, principals, and other school 

leaders; increasing the number of teachers, principals, and other school leaders who are 

effective in improving student academic achievement in schools; providing low-income and 

minority students greater access to effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders and 

reducing class size. SEAs and LEAs have flexibility to carry out a wide variety of specific 

activities based on identified needs.

In addition to renaming the program, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), which 

reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), made a number of 

changes, including increasing the focus on evidence-based practices; emphasizing the 

development of rigorous and fair human capital evaluation and development systems; and 

providing a separate authorization for the Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) 

program, which previously was a set-aside within the formula grant program created through 

appropriations language.

The reauthorization also included two significant changes affecting State allocations. First, it will 

phase out a longstanding hold-harmless allocation methodology under which most funds (about 

$2.1 billion in fiscal year 2016) were allocated to States on the basis of the amounts received by 

each State in fiscal year 2001 under the Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants 

and Class Size Reduction programs. The reauthorization provides that for each of fiscal

years 2017 through 2022, the initial amounts based primarily on fiscal year 2001 allocations are 

reduced by a percentage equal to the product of 14.29 percent and the number of years 

between the fiscal year for which the determination is being made and fiscal year 2016; thus, for 

2017, the initial amounts were reduced by 14.29 percent. For fiscal year 2019, 57.13 percent of 

the funds will be distributed by the hold-harmless amount.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-12C-12

The second change to the statutory State allocation formula gradually increases the weighting 

for children from low-income families. In 2017, 35 percent of remaining allocations were based 

on States’ relative shares of the population aged 5 to 17, and 65 percent was based on States’ 

relative shares of children aged 5 to 17 from low-income families. By 2020, the weighting will be 

20 percent for all children and 80 percent for children from low-income families. The Bureau of 

Indian Education (BIE) in the Department of the Interior and the Outlying Areas each receive 

one-half of 1 percent of the appropriation. The Department may reserve up to one-half of 

1 percent of funding for evaluation.

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

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

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

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

principals and other school leaders. In making subgrants to LEAs, 20 percent of allocations are 

based on LEAs’ share of children aged 5 through 17 and 80 percent on the LEAs’ share of 

children aged 5 through 17 from low-income families. Under the prior legislation, LEAs received 

the amount that they received for fiscal year 2001, with any available funds above that amount 

distributed by formula.

Prior to the ESSA, States used 2.5 percent of their grant funds for State Agency for Higher 

Education (or SAHE) awards to eligible partnerships to provide professional development in 

core academic subjects to teachers, highly qualified paraprofessionals, and, if appropriate, 

principals. These awards are no longer authorized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

programs; and training teachers on the appropriate use of student data. To receive funds, 

States must submit an application that describes how funds will be used, including how activities 

will be aligned with challenging State academic standards, how activities are expected to 

improve student achievement, and how they will monitor and support LEA activities.

To receive subgrants, LEAs submit applications to their States that describe proposed activities 

and how the LEA will prioritize funds to schools. The reauthorized ESEA requires LEAs to 

consult with teachers, principals, and other stakeholders in determining the best uses of Title II, 

Part A funds. States may require LEAs to confirm in their applications that they have involved 

these stakeholders not only in determining how to use the funds, but how to do so in ways that 

are likely to increase the probability that the funds have a positive impact on student 

achievement. Similarly, States may encourage LEAs to consider evidence-based practices to 

increase likelihood of effective use of funds. LEAs may use funds to develop, implement, and 

evaluate comprehensive programs and activities to improve teacher and school leader quality, 

including evaluation and support systems; implement initiatives to assist in recruiting, hiring, and 

retaining effective teachers, especially in low-income schools that particularly need assistance; 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-13C-13

promote teacher leadership; recruit qualified individuals from other fields; reduce class size; 

provide high-quality, personalized professional development; and develop feedback 

mechanisms to improve school working conditions.

In 2015-16, two-thirds of LEAs1 reported using at least a portion of their Title II, Part A funds for 

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

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

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

so percentages total more than 100.)

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

of funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are 

appropriated and remains available for 15 months through September 30 of the following year. 

The remaining funds become available on October 1 of the fiscal year following the 

appropriations act and remain available for 12 months, expiring at the same time as the forwardfunded portion.

1 Findings From the 2015-2016 Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A, Subgrants to LEAs, August 2016. 

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/seasurveyfundsrpt82016.pdf

7

18

25

35

66

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Professional development activities for

superintendents

Initiatives that promote professional growth and

reward quality teaching

Professional development activities for principals

Hiring highly qualified teachers to reduce class

size

Professional development activities for teachers

and paraprofessionals

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

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-14C-14

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014..................................................... $2,348,898

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

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

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

2018....................................................... 2,053,287

NOTE: Includes funds provided to support the SEED program in 2014 and 2015. Funds for the SEED program for 

2016 through 2019 are provided in the Innovation and Improvement account.

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

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

2019, $2.1 billion less than the 2018 annualized continuing resolution amount. The SEI State 

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

funds; has not demonstrated success in contributing to improved teacher quality or student 

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

meaningful impact on student outcomes.

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

the quality of the educator workforce, in school year 2015-2016, 52 percent of funds were used 

for professional development and 25 percent were used for class-size reduction. An LEA that 

identifies either activity as a key strategy for responding to a comprehensive needs assessment 

may use Title I, Part A funds for the same purpose. The Title I, Part A program, funded at nearly 

$15.5 billion annually, also supports locally determined efforts to recruit and retain effective 

teachers.

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

years, contributing a decline in the share of funds used for this purpose, from 57 percent in 

2002-03 to 25 percent were in 2015-16. Consequently, Title II, Part A funds paid the salaries of 

an estimated 8,500 teachers in school year 2015-2016, out of a total nationwide teacher 

workforce of roughly 3 million teachers. These data suggest that eliminating the program is 

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

While complete information on size of the LEA subgrants is not available, based on 2015 data 

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

that over 3,600 subgrant allocations are $10,000 or less, with at least another 2,900 LEAs 

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

meaningful way that will improve instruction or, most importantly, student outcomes.

This program initially was authorized under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) primarily for the 

purpose of ensuring that all teachers are highly qualified, and program performance information 

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

had to have a bachelor’s degree, full State certification or licensure, and demonstrated 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-15C-15

competency in the subjects they teach.) For example, in 2005, less than 90 percent of core 

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

by 2010 this percentage had climbed to 97 percent, and it has remained between 96 and 

97 percent every year since. In 2015, the latest year for which performance data are available, 

the percentages in high poverty (95 percent) and low poverty elementary schools (97 percent) 

were nearly the same. In high-poverty secondary schools, only 84 percent of teachers were 

highly qualified in 2005; that figure rose to 95 percent in 2010 and has remained high.

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

teacher requirements under the ESSA, the Administration believes there no longer is a 

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

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

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

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

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

support more targeted teacher quality improvement activities in response to local needs 

assessments.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Funding for State awards $2,013,847 $2,022,590 0

Range of State awards 9,667−226,600 9,777−230,123 NA

Average State award 38,728 38,896 0

Funding for Outlying Area Awards 10,171 10,215 0

Funding for BIE 10,171 10,215 0

Evaluation 10,222 10,266 0

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

including Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA 

program. The Department reserved from the total for evaluations $5,515 thousand for this purpose in 2017 and may 

reserve funds for the same purpose in 2018.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program.

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

Teacher Quality State Grants program gauged the percentage of core academic classes taught 

by highly qualified teachers in elementary and secondary schools as a whole compared to the 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-16C-16

percentage in high poverty schools. Since 2007, these data have been collected by the 

Department’s EDFacts/Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN).

The reauthorization of the ESEA by the ESSA eliminated highly qualified teacher requirements, 

and the last year of data collection for the current measures was be 2016 (school year 2015-

16). No performance data will be collected for 2017 (school year 2016-17), which is a transition 

year for SEAs and LEAs.1 The Department will develop new measures for 2018.

Goal: To improve teacher and principal quality and increase the number of highly 

qualified teachers in the classroom and highly qualified principals and assistant 

principals in schools.

Objective: Show an annual increase in the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified 

teachers.

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes in high-poverty elementary schools taught 

by highly qualified teachers.

Year Target Actual

2014 100% 96%

2015 100 96

2016 100 95

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes in high-poverty secondary schools taught 

by highly qualified teachers.

Year Target Actual

2014 100% 93%

2015 100 93

2016 100 93

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in 

elementary schools.

Year Target Actual

2014 100% 97%

2015 100 97

2016 100 95

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

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-17C-17

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in 

secondary schools.

Year Target Actual

2014 100% 95%

2015 100 95

2016 100 94

Additional information: The program did not make progress on these four measures for the 

objective from 2015 to 2016 but did achieve high percentages on all four (93 to 95 percent).

Measure: The number of States that reduce the difference between the percentage of core 

academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in elementary schools in the highest 

poverty quartile and the percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified 

teachers in elementary schools in the lowest-poverty quartile.

Year Actual

2014 14

2015 15

2016 20

Measure: The number of States that reduce the difference between the percentage of core 

academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in secondary schools in the highest 

poverty quartile and the percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified 

teachers in secondary schools in the lowest-poverty quartile.

Year Actual

2014 16

2015 17

2016 25

Additional information: These two measures present the number of States that reduced (from 

the year prior to the year for which the data are reported) the difference in the percentage of 

core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in highest poverty versus lowest 

poverty schools.

Other performance information

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

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

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

• Recent studies show that professional development has limited impact on student 

achievement. A recent impact evaluation of an intensive elementary school mathematics 

professional development (PD) intervention, which examined the effectiveness of providing 

PD to fourth-grade teachers to enhance their conceptual understanding of math, found that 

while the PD improved teacher knowledge and led to improvements in teachers’ use and 

quality of explanation in the classroom, there was no difference in student achievement test 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-18C-18

scores on either the State assessment or on a study-administered math test.1 Earlier studies 

of middle school mathematics and elementary reading PD improved teacher knowledge or 

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

student achievement. The study of middle school mathematics PD2

, completed in 2011, had 

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

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

elementary school reading3

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

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

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

improve student achievement in reading. An evaluation brief reviewing these studies4

, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reduce the achievement gap.5 There were, however, a small number of districts3 out of 

the 26 study districtswhere data suggested that providing low-income students with 

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

math achievement gap by about 4 percentile points. (The study identified students as lowincome or high-income based on whether or not they were eligible for free- or reduced-price 

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

effectiveness for very low-income students.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

class size reduction. The study found no impact of the transfer incentives in middle schools.6

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

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

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

1 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_mathpd.asp 2 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_mathematics.asp 3 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_reading.asp 4 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174010/pdf/20174010.pdf 5 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_distribution.asp 6 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_recruitment.asp
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-19C-19

report, based on data collected during the 2013−2014 school year, in January 2017.1 The 

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

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

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

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

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

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

implemented teacher evaluation systems that were consistent with the best practices 

highlighted by emerging research.

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

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

achievement of students in their classrooms.2 This study includes a large sample of novice 

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

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

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

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

study report, expected in 2018, will look at the relationships between the teachers' experiences 

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

1 https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essafaqstransition62916.pdf 2 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_teacherprep_early.asp
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-20

21st Century community learning centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $1,100,000

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$1,183,580 0 -$1,183,580

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

establish or expand centers that provide additional student learning opportunities through 

before- and after-school programs and summer school programs, as well as parenting skills and 

family literacy services, aimed at improving student academic outcomes. Centers must target 

their services primarily to students who attend schools identified for improvement under Title I of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) or other schools determined by local 

educational agencies (LEAs) to be in need of assistance. The program currently provides 

funding to approximately 11,500 centers serving 1.9 million students and 221,000 adult family 

members. In the 2015-16 program year, approximately 728,000, or 44 percent, of all students 

served attended a center for 30 or more days during the academic year. 

Additionally, 21st CCLC funds may support local activities that are included as part of an 

expanded learning time program under which the regular school day has been extended to 

include at least 300 additional program hours. Program funds may be used for a broad range of 

activities, such as those that support a well-rounded education; financial literacy and 

environmental literacy programs; programs that support a healthy and active lifestyle; services 

for individuals with disabilities; activities for students who are English learners; cultural 

programs; telecommunications and technology education programs; expanded library service 

hours; family engagement and literacy programs; programs for students who have been truant, 

suspended, or expelled; drug and violence prevention activities; programs that focus on indemand fields of the local workforce; and programs that build skills in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics. 

Program funds are allocated by formula to States. Of the total appropriation, the Department 

reserves up to 1 percent to carry out national activities and up to 1 percent for grants to the 

Bureau of Indian Education in the Department of the Interior and to the Outlying Areas. The 

Department allocates the remaining funds to States in proportion to each State’s share of funds 

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

receives at least one-half of 1 percent of the total amount available for States.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-21C-21

Each State educational agency (SEA) must award at least 93 percent of its allocation 

competitively to LEAs, community-based organizations, Indian tribes or tribal organizations, 

faith-based organizations, or other public or private entities that can demonstrate experience, or 

the promise of success, in providing education and related activities. In making awards, States 

give priority to applications that: (1) propose to target services to students who attend schools 

implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted support and 

improvement activities under Title I; (2) are submitted jointly by at least one LEA that receives 

funds under Part A of Title I and another eligible entity; or (3) demonstrate that the activities 

proposed in the application are not otherwise accessible to the students who would be served 

by the program or the activities would expand accessibility to high-quality services. States must 

make awards of at least $50,000 per year for a period of 3 to 5 years. An SEA may reserve up 

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

grant competition, and up to 5 percent for monitoring local programs, providing technical 

assistance and training, and evaluating the effectiveness of the State’s program.

This program is forward funded. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal 

year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months through September 30 

of the following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2014 ......................................................$1,149,370

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

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

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

2018 ........................................................1,183,580

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for 21st CCLC for fiscal year 2019. While limited 

evaluation and survey data from certain States and individual centers demonstrate benefits from 

participation, such as improved behavior and classroom grades, overall program performance 

data show that the 21st CCLC program is not achieving its goal of helping students, particularly 

those who attend low-performing schools, meet challenging State academic standards. For 

example, in 2016, only 26 percent of elementary school program participants improved from not 

proficient to proficient or above on State assessments in reading and only 19 percent of middle 

and high school program participants improved from not proficient to proficient or above on 

State assessments in mathematics. Furthermore, student improvement in academic grades was 

limited, with States reporting higher math and English grades for less than half of “regular 

program participants,” defined as students who attended programs for 30 days or more during a 

school year. Additionally, the last rigorous national evaluation of the program, conducted in 

2005, found the program had limited academic impact (see 

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

The program’s longstanding failure to contribute meaningfully to improved academic outcomes 

may be partly explained by the fact that less than half of all participants (728,000 out of 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-22C-22

1.9 million, or 44 percent) attended programs for 30 days or more during the 2015-2016 school 

year. These data suggest that low participation rates and limited or infrequent access to 

federally funded activities are significant obstacles to program effectiveness. 

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

commensurate with an annual investment of more than $1 billion in limited Federal education 

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

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

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

Government, which requires the Administration to give priority to programs more directly 

focused on improving student educational outcomes. Finally, the provision of before- and afterschool academic enrichment opportunities may be supported with other Federal, State, local, or 

private funds, and are an authorized activity under the $15.5 billion Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies program for school districts and schools that prioritize such activities as 

part of comprehensive efforts to help all students meet challenging State academic standards.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Funding for States awards $1,167,840 $1,159,908 0

SA Range of State awards 5,839–136,586 5,800–135,659 0

SA Average State award 22,458 22,306 0

SA Reservation for State activities 

(maximum) 58,392 57,995 0

SA Reservation for State 

administration (maximum) 23,357 23,198 0

National activities and evaluation 10,375 5,918 0

Pooled evaluation 1,542 5,918

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education and the Outlying 

Areas 11,917 11,836 0

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

including this one, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department used this 

authority to pool $1,542 thousand of evaluation funding from this program in fiscal year 2017 and expects to reserve 

funds for pooled evaluation in fiscal year 2018.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

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

21st Century community learning centers

C-23C-23

efforts invested by those served by this program. The tables below do not have 2019 targets 

because the Administration is not requesting funding for this program. 

Goal: To establish community learning centers that help students in high poverty, low 

performing schools meet academic achievement standards, that offer a broad array of 

additional services designed to complement the regular academic program, and that 

offer families of students opportunities for educational development.

Objective: Participants in 21st CCLC programs will demonstrate educational and social 

benefits and exhibit positive behavioral changes.

Measure: The percentage of regular program participants whose mathematics grades improve 

from fall to spring.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All Regular 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All Regular 

Participants

2014 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 36.7% 36.0% 36.5%

2015 40.0 40.0 40.0 49.7 45.4 48.0

2016 40.0 40.0 40.0 48.2 45.5 47.2

2017 40.0 40.0 40.0

2018 50.0 50.0 50.0

Measure: The percentage of regular program participants whose English grades improve from 

fall to spring.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All Regular 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All Regular 

Participants

2014 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 36.7% 37.3% 36.8%

2015 48.5 48.5 48.5 49.6 46.9 48.5

2016 48.5 48.5 48.5 46.7 45.5 46.3

2017 48.5 48.5 48.5

2018 50.0 50.0 50.0

Additional information: A “regular program participant” is defined as a student who attends 

the program for 30 days or more during the course of the school year (approximately 44 percent 

of student participants). To report data by grade span for this measure, the data system sorts 

program performance data by analyzing participant demographic information at the center level 

(as opposed to the individual student level). For this reason, programs that serve youth of all 

ages are not included in the columns disaggregated by grade level. Over the last 4 years, the 

Department has developed and phased in a new performance data collection system for the 

program. The increases in 2015 for the two measures above may be due, in part, to the 

transition to the new system, which can result in comparability and reliability issues.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-24C-24

Measure: The percentage of regular program participants who improve from not proficient to 

proficient or above on State assessments.

Year

Target 

Elementary

Reading

Target 

Middle and High 

School Math

Actual 

Elementary

Reading

Actual 

Middle and High 

School Math

2014 45.0% 25.0% 05.4% 11.1%

2015 15.0 25.0 28.4 22.6

2016 15.0 25.0 25.5 19.1

2017 15.0 25.0

2018 30.0 25.0

Additional information: The Department calculates results for this measure by dividing the 

number of regular participants who scored proficient or better in spring of the reporting year (but 

were not proficient in the previous year) by the total number of current-year regular participants 

who scored below proficient the previous spring. For a regular participant to be included in the 

data for this measure, the center has to have data on the student’s prior-year and current-year 

State assessment results. 

Measure: The percentage of students with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All 

Participants

2014 75% 75% 75% 31.2% 28.9% 30.6%

2015 60 75 75 57.5 55.3 56.8

2016 60 75 75 54.7 54.4 54.6

2017 60 75 75

2018 60 60 60

Additional information: As with the measures for reading and math grades and proficiency, to 

report data by grade span for this measure the data system sorts program performance data by 

analyzing participant demographic information at the center level (as opposed to the individual 

student level). For this reason, programs that serve youth of all ages are not included in the 

columns disaggregated by grade level. 

Efficiency measures

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

21st Century community learning centers

C-25C-25

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

performance measures by the deadline.

Year Target Actual

2014 95% 50%

2015 95 98

2016 95 99

2017 95

2018 95

Additional information: The new performance data collection system includes new data 

quality and completeness checks that have likely helped to improve performance on this 

measure. 

Measure: The average number of days it takes the Department to submit a final monitoring 

report to an SEA after the conclusion of a site visit.

Year Target Actual

2014 35% 75

2015 35 45

2016 35 90

2017 35

2018 35

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

monitoring visit report.

Year Target Actual

2014 4 26

2015 4 17

2016 4 24

2017 4

2018 4

Additional information: This measure tracks States’ timeliness in responding to the 

Department’s fiscal management monitoring findings that require States to take corrective 

action within 30 days. Examples of such fiscal management findings include: drawing down 

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

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

improperly limiting entities eligible for subgrants. Changes in data for the efficiency measures 

are due in part to the volume and severity of the findings for each year. Ongoing issues with a 

small number of States have made the average number of weeks a State takes to resolve 

compliance findings significantly higher in recent years. 

Other performance information

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

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

21st Century community learning centers

C-26C-26

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

implementation.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opportunities to staff through training courses or conferences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#after-school 2 https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/cclcfinalreport/cclcfinal.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-27

State assessments

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $378,000

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$366,593 $369,100 +$2,507

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

students and meet specific student needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

commencement or suspend the administration of State assessments.

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

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

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

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

improving those assessments. Such activities may include, among other things, refining State 

assessments to ensure continued alignment with standards, expanding the range of testing 

accommodations for students with disabilities and for English learner students, developing 

multiple measures to ensure the validity and reliability of State assessments, developing or 

improving models to measure student progress or growth, and using academic assessment 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-28C-28

instruments such as performance and technology-based assessments or computer adaptive 

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

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

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

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

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

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

assessments, support dissemination of best practices for improving assessment quality and 

efficiency, and assist LEAs in streamlining local assessment systems, including the 

establishment of a regular process to review and evaluate local assessments to help ensure 

that all assessments are worth taking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

assessments, computer adaptive assessments, or extended performance task assessments

that allow for new and improved methods for measuring critical thinking, writing, and problem 

solving skills.

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

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

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

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

Assessments program. The Department may reserve up to 20 percent of funds available for 

Grants for State Assessments to make Assessment System Audit grants. The Department must 

use any funds appropriated above the trigger amount for Competitive Grants for State 

Assessment.

State Assessments is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation on 

July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months 

through September 30 of the following year.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-29C-29

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

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

2014 ...........................................................$378,000

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

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

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

2018 .............................................................366,593

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $369.1 million for fiscal year 2019 for State Assessments, an 

increase of $2.5 million, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. All of the funds 

requested would support Grants for State Assessments. The requested level is the minimum 

“trigger amount” needed to ensure that States continue to administer the assessments required 

under Title I, Part A (under section 1111(b)(3)(I) of ESEA States may stop administering these 

assessments if the appropriation for the program is less than this amount). The fiscal year 2019 

request would support State efforts to meet the assessment requirements of the ESEA. The 

request would fund only the formula-based Grants for State Assessments and not the 

separately authorized Assessment System Audits or the Competitive Grants for State 

Assessments program.

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

are a critical element of the statewide accountability systems that each State must establish 

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

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

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

succeeding and schools where challenges remain in improving academic achievement and 

closing achievement gaps. 

The 2019 request will help States continue to administer aligned assessment systems as part of 

their ongoing implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which reauthorized the ESEA 

in late 2015. These assessment systems must be fully implemented during the 2019-2020

school year. Funds may be used to improve the quality of these assessment systems so that 

they measure higher order thinking skills; appropriately assess all students, including students 

with disabilities and English learners; and provide more timely, useful data to students, 

teachers, and parents. States may also use funds to develop comprehensive academic 

assessment instruments such as technology-based assessments or computer adaptive 

assessments. The Department would not reserve funds for the Assessment System Audit 

program because States that desire to carry out such audits may do so in a more flexible, less 

prescriptive manner under the regular Grants for State Assessments.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-30C-30

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Grants for State Assessments

Amount for State Grants $365,409 $362,927 $365,409

Estimated number of awards 52 52 52

Range of awards $3,299-$28,498 $3,295-$28,196 $3,299-$28,498

Average award $7,027 $6,979 $7,027

BIE and Outlying Areas $3,691 $3,666 $3,691

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 2019 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. 

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

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

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

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

3–8 and in high school and science assessments that align with the State's academic content 

standards for all students in each of three grade spans (grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12). The

determination of whether a State has implemented such an assessment in a manner that meets 

statutory requirements is based primarily on formal peer reviews of State assessment systems

by panels of external assessment experts.

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

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

and in 2017 the Department conducted peer reviews for six additional States, along with 

reviews for States that submitted additional evidence for peer review based upon the outcome 

of their 2016 peer reviews The table below shows the number of those States that were 

determined to have partially or substantially met requirements by assessment subject, grade, 

and type (general or alternate) for the 36 States that have been notified of the outcome of their 

assessment review. The Department expects to conduct peer reviews in 2018 for 7 additional 

States plus 31 States submitting additional evidence for peer review based upon the outcome of 

their 2016 peer reviews.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-31C-31

Reading/English Language Arts and Mathematics Assessments

Grades 3-8 General High School General

Grades 3-8 and 

High School Alternate

Did not meet 

requirements 0 0 1

Partially met 

requirements 13 10 17

Substantially met 

requirements 21 22 15

Met requirements 0 0 0

Science

Science Grades 3-8 

General

Science High School 

General

Science Grades 3-8 

and High School 

Alternate

Did not meet 

requirements 0 0 0

Partially met 

requirements 4 8 8

Substantially met 

requirements 9 5 4

Met requirements 0 0 0
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-32

Education for homeless children and youths

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $85,000

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$76,477 $77,000 +$523

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

support the education of those children. 

The Department allocates program funds to States through a formula based on each State's 

share of funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). A 

State may not receive less than $150,000, 0.25 percent of the funds appropriated, or the 

amount of the State’s fiscal year 2001 allocation, whichever is greatest. Program funds are also 

reserved for the outlying areas (0.1 percent of a fiscal year’s appropriation) and the Bureau of 

Indian Education (BIE) of the Department of the Interior (1 percent). In addition, the Department 

is authorized to reserve funds to provide technical assistance (if requested by a State) and 

conduct evaluation and dissemination activities.

A State may reserve up to 25 percent (or in the case of a State receiving the minimum award, 

50 percent) of its allocation for State-level activities and must use remaining funds to make 

subgrants to LEAs. LEAs may use subgrant funds for such activities as providing enriched 

supplemental instruction, transportation, professional development, referrals to health care, and 

other services to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless 

children, including preschool-aged children, and youth.

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

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

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

Education for homeless children and youths

C-33

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014............................................................$65,042

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

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

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

2018..............................................................76,477

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $77 million for fiscal year 2019 for Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths, an increase of $523,000, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level.

The fiscal year 2019 request would support activities to help reduce and eliminate the barriers to 

educational success faced by homeless children, such as transportation and healthcare needs, 

and ensure they have access to academic services available to other children, including 

preschool programs, special education, gifted and talented programs, and career and technical 

education. Approximately 1.3 million students were identified as homeless in school year 2015-

16, of which 15.4 percent were English learners, 18.0 percent were eligible to receive services 

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and 8.6 percent were unaccompanied 

youth (i.e., youth who were not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian). 

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

Children and Youths program with other programs that serve homeless students, in particular

the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program under the ESEA. Title I, for which 

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

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

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

guidance on the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program issued by the 

Department in 2016 included a section on coordinating services with the Title I program.1

 

In addition, the Department plans to continue to use national activities funds to help support 

projects to improve educational services and outcomes for homeless youth. In particular, the 

Department will seek opportunities to work with other agencies that administer programs that 

serve homeless family and youth. Currently, the Department is working in partnership with the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development to facilitate collaboration among school 

districts, institutions of higher education, and grantees under the Youth Homeless 

Demonstration program at that agency to address the educational needs of unaccompanied 

homeless youth and provide them with pathways to postsecondary education or training and 

careers.

1 https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/160240ehcyguidance072716updated0317.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-34

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Amount for State grants $74,868 $74,341 $74,858

Amount for State Gr ants Range of State awards 193–9,005 191–9,516 193–9,584

Amount for State Gr ants Average State award 1,440 1,430 1,440

Amount to BIE 770 765 770

Amount to Outlying Areas 77 76 77

National activities 1,285 1,295 1,295

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 2019 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. 

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

public education as is provided to other children and youth.

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

public education.

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

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

LEA subgrantees.

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

2014 69% 43% 69% 39%

2015 73 27 73 23

2016 77 29 77 24

2017 80 80

2018 80 80

2019 80 80

Additional Information: The data for this measure are not comparable from year to year or 

across States because States followed different timelines for changes to their standards and 

assessments systems to comply with the requirements that assessments be based on collegeand career-ready standards by school year 2014-15. The Department will continue efforts to 

assess the reliability and comparability of State-reported data on homeless students and 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-35

provide guidance and technical assistance to States to assess and data quality. Data for 2017 

will be available in summer 2018.

Efficiency Measure

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

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

States after monitoring events.

Year Target Actual

2014 40 N/A

2015 40 35.0

2016 40 37.4

2017 40 51.0

2018 40

2019 40

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

No data is provided for 2014 because there were no monitoring events for the program that 

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

with changes to the program from the Every Student Succeeds Act. The Department piloted the 

new instrument and procedures with one State in 2017 and will continue the pilot throughout 

2018.

Other Performance Information

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

the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program.1

 The study examined State and 

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

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

homeless students. The study found that transportation, school supplies, and tutoring and 

supplemental instruction were reported by district liaisons as the largest local program 

expenditures and that transportation needs and preoccupation with survival needs were most 

frequently identified as barriers to homeless student enrollment and attendance in school.

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

C-36

Native Hawaiian education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $32,397 (1)

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$33,170 0 -$33,170

_________________

1 Of the amount available to carry out Title VI, Part B of the ESEA, $500 thousand is to be reserved for a direct grant 

to the Native Hawaiian Education Council to carry out Section 6204.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Native Hawaiian Education program supports the provision of supplemental education 

services to the Native Hawaiian population. Competitive grants are awarded to eligible 

applicants for a variety of authorized activities in such areas as teacher training, family-based 

education, gifted and talented education, early childhood education, special education, higher 

education, and community-based education learning centers. Eligible applicants include Native 

Hawaiian educational organizations and community-based organizations, public and private 

nonprofit organizations, agencies, and institutions with experience in developing or operating 

Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction in the Native Hawaiian language, and 

other entities.

The program also supports the activities of the Native Hawaiian Education Council. The Council 

coordinates the educational and related services and programs available to Native Hawaiians, 

directly or through subgrants. It also provides administrative support and financial assistance to 

island councils authorized by the statute. The Council must receive a minimum award of 

$500,000 annually.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014 ............................................................$32,397

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

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

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

2018 ..............................................................33,170
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-37

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for Native Hawaiian Education in fiscal year 2019, 

a reduction of $33.2 million from the fiscal year 2018 annualized CR level. The Administration is 

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

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

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

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

program also will allow the Administration to provide strong support for State formula grant 

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

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

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Amount for new awards $21,819 0 0

Number of new awards 25 0 0

Amount for continuation awards $10,776 $32,670 0

Number of continuation awards 12 26 0

Native Hawaiian Education Council $500 $500 0

Peer review of new award applications $302 0 0

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

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

such funds from this program in fiscal year 2017, but may do so in fiscal year 2018.

Consistent with the President’s request to eliminate funding for this program in fiscal year 2019, the output measures 

for fiscal year 2018 reflect the use of fiscal year 2018 funds to pre-pay continuation costs so as to allow existing 

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

newly funded projects over the proposed grant period.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program. Targets for 2019 are not included 

because funding for this program is proposed for elimination.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-38

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

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

Year Target Actual

2014 70% 66%

2015 70 46

2016 70 48

2017 70

2018 70

2019

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

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

Year Target Actual

2014 57% 53%

2015 58 39

2016 59 40

2017 60

2018 60

2019

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

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

Year Target Actual

2014 31% 37%

2015 32 25

2016 35 28

2017 38

2018 41

2019

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

readiness in literacy.

Year Target Actual

2014 43% 45%

2015 44 51

2016 45 52

2017 46

2018 47

2019
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-39

Additional Information: In 2014, this measure applied to five grantees. In 2015, this measure 

applied to two grantees. 

Measure: The percentage of students in schools served by the program who graduate from 

high school with a regular high school diploma in 4 years.

Year Target Actual

2014 80% 81%

2015 80 83

2016 81 84

2017 82

2018 83

2019

Performance data for 2017 will be available in fall 2018.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-40

Alaska Native education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $31,453

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$32,233 0 -$32,233

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Alaska Native Education program supports supplemental educational programs and 

services for Alaska Natives. The program awards competitive grants to eligible applicants to 

improve the educational outcomes of Alaska Natives. Eligible applicants include Alaska Native 

organizations and entities located in Alaska with experience operating Alaska Native programs 

that have been granted a charter from an Alaska Native tribe or Alaska Native organization.

Allowable activities include the development and implementation of curricula and educational 

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

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

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

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

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

programs.

Grantees may use no more than 5 percent of their awards for administrative costs.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014............................................................ $31,453

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

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

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

2018.............................................................. 32,233

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

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

year 2019, a reduction of $32.2 million below the fiscal year 2018 annualized CR level. The 

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

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

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

Alaska Native education

C-41

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

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

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

for Title VI Indian Education competitive grants, including Native Youth Community Project 

demonstration grants to support local initiatives to meet the specific educational needs of Alaska 

Native communities. School districts in Alaska also may use Title I Grants to LEAs funds to 

carry out most activities authorized under the Alaska Native Education program. Finally, the 

elimination of funding for this program will allow the Administration to provide strong support for 

State formula grant programs and streamline the Department’s operations and workforce over 

time while maintaining the fiscal discipline required to meet the President’s deficit reduction 

goals.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Amount for new awards $10,678 $18,334 0

Number of new awards 16 6 0

Amount for continuation awards $21,515 $13,574 0

Number of continuation awards 33 18 0

Peer review of new award applications $260 $325 0

____________________

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

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

such funds from this program in fiscal year 2017, but may do so in fiscal year 2018.

Consistent with the President’s request to eliminate funding for this program in fiscal year 2019, the output measures 

for fiscal year 2018 reflect the use of fiscal year 2018 funds to pre-pay continuation costs so as to allow existing 

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

newly funded projects over the proposed grant period.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program. Targets for 2019 are not included 

because funding for this program is proposed for elimination.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

C-42

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native students in schools served by the program who 

meet or exceed proficiency standards for reading, mathematics, and science on the State’s 

annual assessments.

 Year Target Actual

2014 43% 45%

2015 45 32

2016 46

2017 47

2018 57

2019

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

The Department will report this data when it becomes available.

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native children participating in early learning and 

preschool programs who demonstrate school readiness in language and literacy as measured 

by the Revised Alaska Developmental Profile.

Year Target Actual

2014 50% 51%

2015 54 49

2016 55 54

2017 56

2018 57

2019

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native students in schools served by the program who 

graduate from high school with a high school diploma in 4 years. 

Year Target Actual

2014 53% 5.1%

2015 54 3.8

2016 55 2.9

2017 56

2018 57

2019

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

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

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

improve performance on the high school graduation measure.

Data for 2017 will be available in fall 2018.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-43

Training and advisory services

(Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$6,530 $6,575 +$45

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

and religion. To carry out those activities, in fiscal year 2016 the Department awarded 5-year 

grants to Equity Assistance Centers (EACs) in four geographic regions serving the 50 States, 

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

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-44

The EACs provide services to school districts upon request. Typical activities include 

disseminating information on successful educational practices and on legal requirements related 

to nondiscrimination in educational programs. Other activities include training designed to 

develop educators' skills in such areas as the identification of race and sex bias in instructional 

materials and technical assistance in the identification and selection of appropriate educational 

programs to meet the needs of a diverse student body.

In the 2016 competition, the Department reduced the number of EACs from 10 to 4 to increase 

the funding (and thereby capacity) of each center to assemble high-quality staff with the 

expertise needed to provide relevant support to districts facing the challenges of navigating an 

ever-changing civil rights landscape. For example, topics covered by the EACs increasingly go 

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

disproportionate discipline, bullying and harassment, culturally relevant pedagogy, teacher 

diversity, the effect of poverty on equity and achievement gaps, and instructional practices that 

reach all students. The consolidation also minimizes duplicative overhead costs (such as startup costs, administrative support, and rent), redirecting those funds to services; and is enabling 

the Department to provide more thorough staff support and monitoring of the centers. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014.............................................................$6,598

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

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

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

2018...............................................................6,530

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2019, the Administration requests $6.575 million for Training and Advisory 

Services, an increase of $45,000 to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. Fiscal year 

2019 funds would support the fourth year of the Equity Assistance Center awards made in fiscal 

year 2016 under the comprehensive redesign of the program intended to improve the capacity 

and the collaboration of the individual centers and the quality of the services that they provide to 

school districts.

In fiscal year 2017, the EACs provided intensive assistance to 20 State educational agencies, 

48 local educational agencies (LEAs), and 8 schools in 33 States, the District of Columbia, and 

Guam. EACs also provided assistance to 20 LEAs to meet requirements stipulated in their 

respective resolution agreements submitted to the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, consent 

decrees issued by the Department of Justice, or in carrying out desegregation orders. 

Requested areas of technical assistance included creating a positive and safe school climate, 

improving family engagement, increasing teacher diversity, and implementing instructional 

practices that reach all students. A majority of recipients of intensive technical assistance 

(81 percent) indicated that they were satisfied with the services the EACs provided. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-45

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

need, such as improving socioeconomic integration, and areas that have previously not been 

emphasized by the program, such as issues of religious discrimination that may be occasioned 

by desegregation. For example, an EAC assisted a State in designing and implementing a 

Socioeconomic Integration Pilot Program, resulting in increased awareness of staff regarding 

key State-level systems and processes necessary to sustain local socioeconomic integration 

efforts. An EAC also provided technical assistance to LEA administrators, school administrators, 

and teachers that increased their understanding of the implications of the First Amendment as it 

relates to religion in public schools and the challenges faced by students from diverse religious 

backgrounds.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Amount for grant awards $6,545 $6,500 $6,545

Number of awards 4 4 4

Data collection $30 $30 $30

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2019

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

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

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

Research Division of the Library of Congress, under an interagency agreement with the 

Department. 

Goal: To support access and equity in public schools and help school districts solve 

equity problems in education related to race, sex, national origin, and religion.

Objective: Provide coordinated technical assistance and training to State education agencies 

and public school districts in addressing equity in education.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-46

GPRA Measures

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

resulting from technical assistance provided.

Year Target

(Combined Only)

Combined

Actual

Awareness

Actual

Knowledge

Actual

2017 82% 82% 76%

2018 85%

2019 88

Additional information: In implementing this measure customers were asked whether they 

increased their awareness or knowledge and, if so to what extent, on different topics for which 

they received assistance. Data reflect the percentage of respondents who said they did so to a 

moderate or great extent on at least one topic. Results for 2017 are based on 50 of 91 clients 

served in 2016-17 who responded to the survey questions corresponding to this measure. 

Targets represent an annual increase of 3 percentage points.

Measure: The percentage of customers who report changed policies or practices related to 

providing students with a full opportunity for participation in all educational programs regardless 

of their sex, race, religion, and national origin.

Year Target Actual

2017 76%

2018 79%

2019 82

Additional information: In implementing this measure customers were asked if their 

organization developed, improved, or implemented such policies or practices on different topics 

for which they received assistance. Data reflect the percentage of respondents who said they 

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

who responded to the survey questions corresponding to this measure. Targets represent an 

annual increase of 3 percentage points.

Measure: The percentage of customers reporting an increase in capacity resulting from 

technical assistance provided.

Year Target Actual

2017 74%

2018 77%

2019 80

Additional information: In implementing this measure customers were asked whether their 

organization received assistance to (1) build inclusive leadership, (2) identify and/or leverage 

mutually beneficial relationships or partnerships, or (3) obtain and/or leverage tangible materials 

or systems, and, if so, the extent to which their capacity increased after receiving assistance 

from the EAC. Data reflect the percentage of respondents who said their capacity increased to a 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-47

moderate or great extent in at least one of these ways. Results for 2017 are based on 27 of 

91 clients served in 2016-17 who responded to the survey questions corresponding to this 

measure. (Suggesting that only 27 clients received services in any of the three areas 

enumerated in the survey question, with this GPRA question applicable only to those clients.) 

Targets represent an annual increase of 3 percentage points.

Project Measures 

Measure: The percentage of technical assistance requests received from organizations that 

were accepted during the performance period.

Year Target Actual

2017 95%

2018 96%

2019 97

Additional information: The source of the data for this measure is the four EAC grantee 

annual performance reports. In the 2016-17 school year the four EACs reported they received a 

total of 257 requests for technical assistance, of which they accepted 243 (or 95 percent). 

Reasons why, in rare instances, requests for assistance were not accepted included, for 

example, (1) requests from clients outside the EAC’s geographic regions (in which case the 

EAC referred the requester to the EAC in its region); and (2) requests for assistance that were 

outside the statutory desegregation assistance scope of the EACs (such as a request for 

assistance with a disability claim, or with filing a complaint alleging unfair racial discipline of a 

student, in which case the EAC referred the requester to the appropriate agency). 

Measure: The percentage of technical assistance requests received from new (not previously 

served by the EAC) organizations during the performance period.

Year Target Actual

2017 61%

2018 68%

2019 75

Additional information: The source of the data for this measure is the four EAC grantee 

annual performance reports. In the 2016-17 school year, the EACs reported they received a 

total of 257 requests for technical assistance, of which 156 (or 61 percent) were from new (not 

previously served by the EAC) organizations. Targets represent an annual increase of 

7 percentage points.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-48

Measure: The percentage of customers willing to request additional technical assistance and/or 

refer another organization to an EAC for technical assistance during the performance period.

Year Target

(Combined Only)

Combined

Actual

Request Additional

Actual

Refer

Actual

2017 83% 79% 83%

2018 85%

2019 88

Additional information: In implementing this measure customers were asked (1) how likely 

they were to request additional assistance from the EAC and (2) how likely they were to refer 

another agency to an EAC for technical assistance. Results for 2017 are based on 47 of 

91 clients served in 2016-17 who responded to the survey questions corresponding to this 

measure and how many of them reported they probably or definitely will do so. Targets 

represent an annual increase of 3 percentage points.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-49

Rural education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $169,840 (1)

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$174,646 $175,840 +$1,194

1 The funds appropriated to carry out Title V, Part B are to be distributed equally between Subparts 1 and 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Rural Education Achievement program (REAP) includes two distinct programs to assist 

rural local educational agencies (LEAs) in carrying out activities to help improve the quality of 

teaching and learning in their schools. The Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program 

provides funds to rural LEAs that serve small numbers of students; the Rural and Low-Income 

School (RLIS) program provides funds to rural LEAs that serve high concentrations of students

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

between the SRSA and the RLIS programs. 

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

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

September 30 of the following year.

Small, Rural School Achievement Program (Subpart 1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

allocation minus the amount received in “applicable funding,” which are funds allocated in the 

previous fiscal year under the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Part A of Title II) 

and Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (Part A of Title IV) programs.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-50

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

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

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

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

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

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

as “REAP-Flex”, consolidate any and all of its applicable funding for allowable activities 

authorized under the five programs specified above.

Rural and Low-Income School Program (Subpart 2)

Under the RLIS program the Department makes formula allocations to States based on each 

State’s share of children in ADA in all eligible LEAs. Eligible LEAs must: (1) have a Census 

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

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

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

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

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

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

concentrations of poor students. 

LEAs may use program funds for: (1) Part A of Title I (Improving Basic Programs Operated by 

Local Educational Agencies); (2) Part A of Title II (Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants); 

(3) Title III (English Language Acquisition State Grants); (4) Part A of Title IV (Student Support 

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

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

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

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands) fn

2014 .........................................................$169,840

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

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

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

2018 ...........................................................174,646

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $175.8 million for fiscal year 2019 for REAP, an increase of 

$1.2 million from the 2018 annualized Continuing Resolution level, to restore funding to the 

fiscal year 2017 level. The request includes appropriations language that overrides the 

authorized funding level for this program. At the requested level, the program would support an 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-51

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

approximately $33,000 under RLIS.

The 2019 request for REAP recognizes the significant obstacles faced by rural LEAs in ensuring 

that all students meet challenging State academic standards and graduate high school ready for 

college or careers, consistent with the ESEA. Based on 2015 data from the National Center for 

Education Statistics, 28 percent of the Nation’s public schools were located in rural areas, with 

19 percent of all public school students enrolled at these schools. The small size and 

remoteness of many rural schools and LEAs creates a different set of challenges from those of 

urban schools and LEAs. For example, rural schools and LEAs generally do not benefit from 

economies of scale and, thus, can face greater per-pupil costs in areas such as staffing or 

transportation. Rural LEAs often are not able to offer their students the same level of access to 

advanced coursework as other LEAs. In 2009, just 32 percent of students graduating high 

school in rural areas had earned credits in dual credit, Advanced Placement, or International 

Baccalaureate courses, compared to 48 percent of city and 44 percent of suburban high school 

graduates. In addition, because of size and location, many small, rural LEAs have faced 

difficulty in recruiting and retaining effective teachers. REAP funds provide rural LEAs with 

critical additional resources that can be used to help meet such challenges.

Rural LEAs also frequently receive allocations under the Department’s other formula grant 

programs that are too small to allow the LEA to effectively address the purposes for which the 

funds are appropriated. Recognizing that rural LEAs frequently receive small allocations from 

Federal formula grants, the alternative fund use authority gives SRSA-eligible LEAs the 

flexibility to make more effective use of their small Federal formula allocations. An estimated 

44 percent of eligible LEAs notified their respective States of their intention to take advantage of 

this authority in school year 2015-16. Yet even when the eligible LEAs consolidate their 

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

statutory objectives in a meaningful manner. REAP funds supplement these small formula grant 

allocations under other ESEA programs and assist rural LEAs in meeting ESEA requirements 

and addressing the other challenges they face in improving educational outcomes for all 

students.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Small, rural school achievement(SRSA)

SRSA Total funding $87,920 $87,323 $87,920

RSANumber of LEAs receiving grants 3,878 3,878 3,878

SRSA Average LEA grant $23 $23 $23

SRSA Average award per student (whole $) $85 $84 $85

SRSARange of awards to LEAs 0–$52 0–$52 0–$52
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-52

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Rural and low income schools(RLIS)

RLIS Total funding $87,920 $87,323 $87,920

RLIS Amount for State grants $87,040 $86,450 $87,040

RLIS Amount for BIE $440 $437 $440

RLIS Amount for Outlying Areas $440 $437 $440

RLISNumber of States receiving grants 46 46 46

RLISNumber of LEAs receiving subgrants 2,645 2,645 2,645

RLIS Average State grant $1,892 $1,879 $1,892

RLIS Average LEA subgrant $33 $33 $33

RLIS Average award per student (whole $) $19 $19 $19

RLISRange of awards to States $46–$8,255 $45–$8,199 $46–$8,255

RLIS Estimated range of subgrants to LEAs 0–$251 0–$250 0–$251

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

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

funds for this purpose from REAP in fiscal year 2017, but may do so in fiscal years 2018 and 2019. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

year 2019 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

The Department is planning to revise REAP’s GPRA goals, objectives, measures, and targets to 

reflect changes resulting from the reauthorization of the ESEA; in particular, the Department 

anticipates changing performance targets for several measures to reflect the elimination of the 

100-percent proficiency requirement under the previous version of the law.

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

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

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

Rural education

C-53

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the SRSA program 

who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts. 

Year Target Actual

2014 100% 67%

2015 100 56

2016 100 57

2017 100

2018 100

2019 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the SRSA program 

who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2014 100% 63%

2015 100 49

2016 100 50

2017 100

2018 100

2019 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the RLIS program who 

score proficient or better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts.

Year Target Actual

2014 100% 61%

2015 100 48

2016 100 48

2017 100

2018 100

2019 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the RLIS program who 

score proficient or better on States’ assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2014 100% 57%

2015 100 43

2016 100 44

2017 100

2018 100

2019 100
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-54

Additional information: The decreases in the percentage of students scoring at or above the 

proficient level among LEAs participating in REAP can be explained, in part, by States’ 

transition to more rigorous assessments based on college- and career-ready standards. The 

performance targets for these measures reflect the previous reauthorization of the ESEA, which 

required all students to be proficient in reading/language arts and mathematics by 2014. These

targets are no longer relevant following reauthorization and REAP GPRA measures will be 

revised to reflect appropriate goals. Data for 2017 are expected in October 2018. 

Objective: SRSA-eligible rural school districts will use the REAP flexibility authority.

Measure: The percentage of SRSA-eligible school districts using the REAP flexibility authority

(known as REAP-Flex prior to 2017, now the AFUA).

Year Target Actual

2014 65% 43%

2015 65 43

2016 65 44

2017 65

2018 65

2019 65

Additional information: While this measure was developed to capture the percentage of 

eligible LEAs actually using the flexibility authority, the best available information is on the 

number of LEAs reporting to the State their intent to use this authority. Since there is little 

reason to believe that LEAs would provide this notification and not use the authority, reported 

intent serves as a reasonable proxy. Data for 2017 are expected in October 2018.

Other Performance Information

The Department completed a study of REAP in December 2016 that examined implementation 

of REAP funds at the State and LEA levels. More specifically, the study sought to identify how 

grantees are targeting REAP funds and to assess effectiveness in key areas, such as teacher 

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

use of technology. Respondents included State, LEA, and school level administrators, as well 

as professional development and technical assistance providers. LEAs most frequently used 

REAP funds to improve or expand access to technology (71 percent of SRSA LEAs and 

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

SRSA LEAs and 58 percent of RLIS LEAs). Forty-six percent of SRSA LEAs reported exercising 

REAP-Flex (now the AFUA). The majority of both LEA and State REAP coordinators were 

highly satisfied with REAP as a whole. However, they provided recommendations for 

improvement to REAP in three categories: 1) improved timelines for eligibility and award 

determination, 2) more information on allowable uses of funds and REAP-flex, and 3) revised 

eligibility criteria. Upon reviewing this report and additional feedback received from State and 

LEA grantees, the Department revised the REAP grant making timeline in order to make awards 

earlier than in past years, starting with fiscal year 2018.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-55

Supplemental education grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $21,779 (1)

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$16,586 $16,699 +$113

1 The 2019 authorization is based on the fiscal year 2005 authorization level, adjusted for inflation in 

accordance with statutory requirements.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-188) eliminated the 

participation of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands (RMI) in most domestic formula grant programs funded by the Departments of 

Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL). As a replacement, 

beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Act authorizes supplemental education grants in an amount 

that is roughly equivalent to the total formula funds that these entities received in fiscal year 

2004 under the Federal formula programs for which they are no longer eligible, adjusted for 

inflation. These grants augment the funds that the FSM and the RMI receive for general 

education assistance under their Compacts of Free Association with the U.S. Government.

The Act eliminated the participation of the FSM and the RMI in the following Department of 

Education programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies, Career and Technical Education Grants under Title I of the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, Adult Basic and Literacy Education State 

Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunities Grants, and Federal Work-Study. 

However, they remain eligible for participation in other Department programs, including the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act State Grants and programs under Part A, Subpart 1 of 

Title IV of the Higher Education Act, as well as ED, HHS, and DOL competitive programs. Also, 

the Act eliminated FSM and RMI participation in programs under Title I (other than Job Corps) 

of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (DOL) and Head Start (HHS). 

The Department of Education is required to transfer funds appropriated for Supplemental 

Education Grants to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for disbursement to the RMI and the 

FSM not later than 60 days after the appropriation becomes available. Appropriations are to be 

used and monitored in accordance with an interagency agreement between the four agencies 

and in accordance with the “Fiscal Procedure Agreements” entered into by the FSM and the 

RMI with the U.S. Government. These agreements call for the funds to be used at the local 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

C-56

school level for direct educational services focused on school readiness, early childhood 

education, elementary and secondary education, vocational training, adult and family literacy, 

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

used for construction or remodeling, the general operating costs of school systems, or teacher 

salaries (except the salaries of teachers who carry out programs supported by the grants). 

The FSM and the RMI may request technical assistance from ED, HHS, or DOL, on a 

reimbursement basis. While past years’ appropriations acts also permitted the FSM and the RMI 

to reserve up to 5 percent of their grants to pay for such technical assistance as well as for 

administration of their grants, since fiscal year 2015, appropriations acts instead allow ED to 

reserve up to 5 percent of Supplemental Education Grants funds to provide technical assistance 

for these grants. The Department has yet to exercise this authority.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014............................................................$16,699

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

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

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

2018..............................................................16,586

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $16.7 million for Supplemental Education Grants, an increase of 

$113,000, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. The request would ensure the 

continuation of services for residents of the RMI and the FSM. The request also includes 

appropriations language that would continue to give the Department of Education the authority 

to reserve up to 5 percent of appropriated funds to provide technical assistance to support 

effective use of program funds to improve educational outcomes in the RMI and the FSM. 

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

The RMI and the FSM have also used Supplemental Education Grant funds for education 

improvement programs, vocational and skills training, and professional development. The 

Administration anticipates that fiscal year 2019 funding would be used for similar purposes. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

C-57

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Grant to the Federated States of 

Micronesia $11,142 $11,067 $11,142

Grant to the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands 5,557 5,519 5,557

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

operated by the Department of the Interior.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

track progress.

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

between 2004 and 2009 highlighted the continuing challenges faced by both entities in 

improving the quality of education due to a lack of qualified teachers, poor facilities, and a high 

absentee rate among students and teachers. While access to elementary and secondary

education had increased in the RMI and student enrollment had increased during this period 

despite significant out-migration, the RMI continued to have few standardized tests for 

assessing student achievement, a high dropout rate, and a low percentage of qualified teachers. 

The FSM continued to struggle with low student achievement, discouraging student drop-out 

rates, and problematic teacher attendance. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-58

Comprehensive centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: 0 (1)

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$49,661 0 -$49,661

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

for fiscal year 2019.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Comprehensive Centers program is authorized to support not less than 20 Comprehensive 

Centers, including regional centers and content centers, to provide training, technical 

assistance, and professional development to build State capacity to provide high-quality 

education for all students, particularly those in low-performing local educational agencies (LEAs) 

and schools. Centers provide support to State educational agencies (SEAs), and through them, 

to LEAs and schools. Comprehensive Centers are part of a Department technical assistance 

network that includes the Regional Educational Laboratories, the What Works Clearinghouse, 

Equity Assistance Centers, Office of Special Education Program-funded technical assistance 

centers, and other Department-supported single centers designed to provide support to SEAs, 

LEAs, and schools.

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

create materials, tools, and training that reflect national expertise to complement and support 

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

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

capacity to implement school and district improvement measures.

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

2012 cohort of Comprehensive Centers, which received initial awards in 2012, includes 

7 content centers and 15 regional centers. An additional content center, funded in response to 

2016 appropriations language and a new authority in the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), focuses on students 

at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.

Each comprehensive center must develop a 5-year plan for carrying out authorized activities. 

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

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

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

Comprehensive centers

C-59

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

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

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

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

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

student academic achievement.

Comprehensive Centers Network

Awards to the regional Centers ranged from $0.9 to $4.6 million in fiscal year 2017, depending 

in part on the complexity and scope of the work involved and the size of the area to be served. 

In addition, certain Department programs have provided supplemental funding to one or more 

Centers to expand their capacity to meet special needs identified by either the Department or 

particular stakeholders. For example, the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders received

Content Centers

Standards & Assessments Implementation

Great Teachers and Leaders

School Turnaround

Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes

College- and Career- Readiness and Success

Building State Capacity and Productivity

Innovations in Learning

Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities

Regional Centers
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-60

additional funding in 2017 from the Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

program as well as from the Career and Technical Education National Activities program to 

provide technical assistance on serving students with disabilities and on effective instruction and 

leadership in career and technical education, respectively.

By statute, the Comprehensive Centers are not permitted to provide direct support to the 

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). However, fiscal year 2017 appropriations language directed 

the Department to ensure that the Bureau of Indian Education has access to services from the 

Comprehensive Centers, and the Department provided a supplement of $300,000 to the West 

Comprehensive Center to support direct technical assistance to the BIE.

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

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

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

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

scheduled for completion in 2018.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014............................................................$48,445

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

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

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

2018..............................................................49,661

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

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

year 2019. The Comprehensive Centers support dissemination and technical assistance 

activities designed to improve the implementation of ESEA programs and help teachers and 

administrators use effective teaching methods and assessment tools. The centers carry out this 

work by providing training, technical assistance, and professional development to build State 

capacity to provide high-quality education. Such assistance can be paid for directly by States 

and school districts through programs such as Title I Grants to LEAs and Title I funds reserved 

for school improvement. Title I funds make available $15.5 billion annually to more than 

14,000 school districts and 55,000 public elementary and secondary schools. Given the fiscal 

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

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

Administration is choosing to protect support for programs such as Title I rather than programs 

where the service providers are determined by the Federal Government. The request also is 

consistent with the principles of the ESSA, which reauthorized the ESEA in 2015 and which 

emphasizes State and local responsibility for determining educational goals in response to State 

and local needs and developing and implementing strategies for meeting those goals. 

Consequently, the Administration believes that operation of a top-down, Washington-directed 

Comprehensive Centers system created to align with the mandates of the No Child Left Behind 

Act, the previous authorization of ESEA, is no longer an appropriate role for the Department of 

Education.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-61

The current set of 22 centers, including 7 content centers and 15 regional centers, were first 

funded in 2012 and their performance periods were extended by 2 years in order to allow the 

Department to determine a technical assistance strategy fully aligned with the ESEA as 

reauthorized by the ESSA. Consequently, these centers would receive their last year of funding 

in fiscal year 2018. One additional center, the National Center on Improving Literacy for 

Students with Disabilities, which received a 5-year award in 2016 in response to report 

language accompanying the Department of Education Appropriations Act, would be terminated 

at the end of its third year of funding.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Project funding

Regional Center grantsfundi ng $38,253 $38,399 0

Content Center grantsfunding 11,219 11,262 0

Evaluationfunding 528 0 0

Total fundi ng 50,000 49,661 0

Regional Centers

ReAverage Award for Regional C enters $2,550 $2,560 0

Range of Awards for Regional C enters $923−$4,567 $927−$4,585 0

Number of Awards for Regional C enters 15 15 0

Content Centers

Average Awardfor C ontent Centers $1,457 $1,408 0

Range of Awardsfor Content C enters $1,332−$1,722 $1,338−$1,728 0

Number of Awardsfor Content C enters 8 8 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department placed strong emphasis on rigorous performance measures for the centers, in 

part through a Departmentwide effort to create common performance measures for technical 

assistance programs. 

The Comprehensive Centers measures are designed to analyze the quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of the services provided by the centers. The data were collected and reported using 

client surveys developed by the Centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of 

client surveys used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. The data are 

from the 22 Centers that received awards in the 2012 grant competition.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-62

Goal: To improve student achievement in low performing schools under the ESEA.

Objective: Improve the quality of technical assistance.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high quality by clients.

Year Target Actual

2014 80% 95%

2015 80 95

2016 80 96

2017 80 96

2018 80

Additional information: In 2017, 20 of the 22 Centers in the 2012 grant cohort provided data 

for this measure, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 81 to 100 percent.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high relevance to educational policy or practice by clients.

Year Target Actual

2014 80% 94%

2015 80 95

2016 80 93

2017 80 97

2018 80

Additional information: In 2017, 20 of the 22 Centers in the 2012 grant cohort provided data 

for this measure, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 91 to 100 percent.

Objective: Technical assistance products and services will be used to improve results for 

students in the target areas.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high usefulness to educational policy or practice by clients.

Year Target Actual

2014 80% 92%

2015 80 92

2016 80 93

2017 80 95

2018 80

Additional information: In 2017, 20 of the 22 Centers in the 2012 grant cohort provided data 

for this measure, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 91 to 100 percent.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-63

Efficiency Measures

The Department implemented a common measure of administrative efficiency to assess the 

Comprehensive Centers program and other technical assistance programs. The measure is the 

percentage of grant funds that the centers carry over for each year of operations. Data for the 

measure are available each year in September, after Department staff have reviewed data for 

the previous 12-month budget cycle, and are presented in the table below.

Objective: Improve the operational efficiency of the program.

Measure: The percentage of Comprehensive Center grant funds carried over in each year of 

the project.

Year Target Actual

2014 10% 8%

2015 10 5

2016 10 1

2017 10 0.5

2018 10

Additional information: In 2013, grantees carried over 20 percent of their funds, which likely 

reflected a one-time increase in carrying over funds by grantees following the first year of their 

awards, when spending is often lower than planned due to time required for start-up and 

planning. The percentage dropped to 8 percent in 2014 and has continued to decline.

Other Performance Information

In addition to the performance measures and data described above, the Department is carrying 

out a descriptive study of the 2012 cohort of Comprehensive Centers’ activities and outcomes 

that is examining how the individual centers intend to build SEA capacity (their theories of 

action) and what types of activities they conduct to build capacity.1 Data collection began in the 

spring of 2015; the final report is scheduled for release in 2018.

The data collection consists of interviews, surveys, and reviews of Center work to address 

questions about the design, implementation, and outcomes of the Centers’ products and 

technical assistance. The evaluation focuses on two of the seven federal priority areas in which 

Centers provide services: (1) Identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly effective 

teachers and leaders and (2) ensuring the school readiness and success of preschool-age 

children and their successful transition to kindergarten.

In November 2016, the study contractor provided descriptive reports for 8 of the 22 Centers 

(4 regional centers and 4 content centers) summarizing information from an online survey of 

recipients of Center technical assistance. Reports for the remaining 14 Centers were not 

provided because response rates were less than 50 percent and the number of respondents 

was less than 10. The number of respondents across the eight Centers for which reports were 

1 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_techcenters12.asp
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-64

provided was small (136 of 186 individuals responded to the survey, with response rates 

ranging from 50 to 80 percent across the Centers), but based on information received:

• Most respondents (72 to 100 percent across the eight Centers) indicated that they had 

specific plans to use the information received from the Centers within the next 12 months; 

and

• Most respondents (77 to 100 percent) indicated that the Centers enabled them to 

accomplish something that they might not otherwise have been able to accomplish.

In addition, respondents tended to agree that the Centers helped them to learn about new tools 

and strategies, access useful information, and perform their jobs in more informed and efficient 

ways.
C-65

Student support and academic enrichment grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $1,600,000

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$397,284 0 -$397,284

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants are intended to improve academic 

achievement by increasing the capacity of States and local educational agencies (LEAs) to 

provide students with access to a well-rounded education and improve school conditions and 

use of technology.

The Department allocates program funds to States by formula based on each State’s share of 

funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), for the preceding fiscal year. No State may receive less than 0.5 percent of 

the total program appropriation except for Puerto Rico, which may not receive more than this 

amount. The Department also reserves funds for the outlying areas and for the Bureau of Indian 

Education (BIE) of the Department of the Interior (0.5 percent in each case) and to provide 

technical assistance and capacity building (2 percent).

States must use not less than 95 percent of funds to make subgrants to LEAs and not more 

than 1 percent for administrative costs, and may use any remaining funds for State-level 

activities consistent with the purposes of the program, which may include providing technical 

assistance or direct support to LEAs to carry out authorized activities. Under the authorizing 

statute, States allocate subgrants to LEAs on the same formula basis as above, except that no 

LEA may receive less than $10,000. LEAs may form consortia and combine subgrant 

allocations to carry out activities jointly. States and LEAs must use funds to supplement, and not 

supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used for authorized activities.

LEAs receiving formula allocations of $30,000 or more must conduct a comprehensive needs 

assessment and, based on the results of that assessment, use not less than 20 percent of their 

allocations for activities to support well-rounded educational opportunities, not less than 

20 percent for activities to support safe and healthy students, and a portion to support the 

effective use of technology. LEAs receiving less than $30,000 must use funds to carry out 

activities in at least one of these three areas. LEAs must prioritize support to schools with the 

greatest needs as determined by the LEA, schools with the highest concentrations of Title I 

formula children, schools that are identified for comprehensive support and improvement or 

implementing targeted support and improvement plans under the amended Title I, or schools 

that are identified as persistently dangerous schools. LEAs may reserve up to 2 percent of their 

allocations for administrative costs.
C-66

LEAs may use funds for a range of activities to support a well-rounded education, including: 

providing college and career counseling, including financial literacy activities; promoting student 

engagement and success through music and the arts; improving instruction in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics; increasing the availability of accelerated learning 

courses, such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses, as well as dual 

or concurrent enrollment programs and early college high schools; strengthening instruction in 

American history, civics, economics, geography, and government; and providing foreign 

language instruction and environmental education.

Authorized activities to support safe and healthy students include: evidence-based drug and 

violence prevention programs; school-based mental health services, including through 

partnerships with mental health or health care entities; activities to support a healthy, active 

lifestyle, including physical education; activities to help prevent bullying and harassment; 

mentoring and school counseling; school dropout and reentry programs; high-quality training for 

school personnel in such areas as suicide prevention, crisis management, and conflict 

resolution; child sexual abuse awareness and prevention programs; designing and 

implementing plans to reduce exclusionary discipline practices; and implementing schoolwide 

positive behavioral interventions and supports. In these areas, LEAs may use funds to 

implement pay for success initiatives (i.e., performance-based agreements under which, among 

other things, payments are made only after achievement of outcomes).

Lastly, LEAs may pursue such educational technology-related activities as: providing school 

and LEA personnel with tools and resources to use technology effectively to improve instruction, 

support teacher collaboration, and personalize learning; building technological capacity and 

infrastructure, including by procuring content and purchasing devices, equipment, and software; 

providing specialized or rigorous technology-based academic courses; carrying out projects 

blending classroom and technology-based instruction in a way that provides students with 

control over the time, path, or pace of learning; providing professional development; and 

providing students in rural and underserved areas with access to digital learning experience and 

resources, including online courses. Of funds supporting the effective use of technology, LEAs 

receiving formula allocations may use not more than 15 percent to purchase technology 

infrastructure.

Optional Competitive Subgrants

The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided States the option to award 

fiscal year 2017 funds to LEAs on a competitive basis; this authority would continue in fiscal 

year 2018 under an annualized CR. States that award funds competitively must give priority to 

LEAs with the greatest need based on the number or percentage of Title I formula children while 

also ensuring geographic diversity among subgrant recipients representing rural, suburban, and 

urban areas. Significantly, the appropriations language requires States, rather than LEAs, to 

address the statutory requirements related to the distribution of funds among authorized 

activities by making competitive awards that, in the aggregate, reflect the required percentage 

distribution of funds (i.e. not less than 20 percent for well-rounded education, not less than 

20 percent for safe and healthy students, and a portion for technology). Competitive subgrants 

must be for a term of 1 year and in an amount not less than $10,000 and are not subject to the 

expenditure distribution requirements that apply to LEA formula allocations above $30,000. In 

addition, a competitive subgrant recipient using funds to carry out only activities to support the 

effective use of technology may use not more than 25 percent of funds for purchasing 
C-67

technology infrastructure. Competitive subgrants are otherwise subject to the same terms and 

conditions as LEA formula allocations.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants is a forward-funded program. Funds become 

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

available through September 30 of the following year.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

2016.......................................................................0

2017..........................................................$400,000

2018..........................................................$397,284

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration does not request funding for Student Support and Academic Enrichment 

Grants for fiscal year 2019. The activities authorized under this program generally can be 

supported with funds from other Federal, State, local, and private sources, including similarly 

flexible funds provided under the $15.5 billion Title I Grants to LEAs program. In addition, 

although appropriations language allows States to make subgrants competitively, funds may be 

awarded by formula, which at the annualized CR funding level of $397 million would result in 

allocations of less than $30,000 for the vast majority of LEAs. The Administration believes that 

limited Federal education resources should not be invested in a program under which LEA 

formula allocations would be too small to have a meaningful impact.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Amount to States $388,000 $385,365 0

Range of State awards 1,940–46,418 1,927–46,203 0

Average State award 7,462 7,411 0

Amount to Outlying Areas 2,000 1,986 0

Amount to BIE 2,000 1,986 0

National activities 8,000 7,946 0

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

including Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA 

program. The Department did not reserve funds for this purpose from Student Support and Academic Enrichment 

Grants in fiscal year 2017, but may do so in fiscal year 2018.
C-68

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department has not yet established measures to assess the impact of the activities that 

receive support under this program. The development of any such measures would build on our 

experience in creating performance measures for other programs, and the Department would 

also seek to align those measures for related programs.