Department of Education

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................D-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................D-3

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ..............................................................................D-5

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................D-6

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................D-7

Appropriations History.............................................................................................................D-8

Significant Items in FY 2020 Appropriations Reports...............................................................D-9

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................D-12

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants.....................................................................D-14

21st Century community learning centers.........................................................................D-21

State assessments ...........................................................................................................D-28

Education for homeless children and youths.....................................................................D-33

Native Hawaiian education ...............................................................................................D-37

Alaska Native education ...................................................................................................D-41

Training and advisory services .........................................................................................D-44

Rural education ................................................................................................................D-50

Supplemental education grants ........................................................................................D-56

Comprehensive centers....................................................................................................D-59

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

State Tables*

State tables reflecting final 2019 allocations and 2020 and 2021 estimates are posted on the 

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

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-1

Appropriations Language

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized by part B of title I, [part A of title II, 

subpart 1 of part A of title IV, part B of title IV, part B of title V, and parts B and C of title VI] of 

the ESEA; [the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; section 203 of the Educational 

Technical Assistance Act of 2002;] the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003; 

and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, [$5,246,967,000] $392,374,000 of which [$3,575,402,000] 

$369,100,000 shall be for part B of title I of the ESEA and shall become available on July 1, [

2020 ]2021, and remain available through September 30, [ 2021, and of 

which $1,681,441,000 shall become available on October 1, 2019, and shall remain available 

through September 30, 2020, for academic year 2019–2020: Provided, That $378,000,000 shall 

be for part B of title I1: Provided further, That $1,249,673,000 shall be for part B of title 

IV2: Provided further, That $36,897,000 shall be for part B of title VI and may be used for 

construction, renovation, and modernization of any elementary school, secondary school, or 

structure related to an elementary school or secondary school, run by the Department of 

Education of the State of Hawaii, that serves a predominantly Native Hawaiian student 

body3: Provided further, That $35,953,000 shall be for part C of title VI and shall be awarded on 

a competitive basis, and also may be used for construction4: Provided further, 

That $52,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 203 of the Educational Technical 

Assistance Act of 2002 and the Secretary shall make such arrangements as determined to be 

necessary to ensure that the Bureau of Indian Education has access to services provided under 

this section5]2022: Provided [further], That $16,699,000 shall be available to carry out the 

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

Republic of the Marshall Islands6: 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 grants7[: Provided further, That $185,840,000 shall be for part B of title 
D-2

V8: Provided further, That $1,210,000,000 shall be available for grants under subpart 1 of part A 

of title IV] 9. (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2020.)

NOTE

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

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

D-3

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1... $392,374,000 of which [$3,575,402,000] 

$369,100,000 shall be for part B of title I of 

the ESEA and shall become available on July 

1, [ 2020 ]2021, and remain available through 

September 30, [ 2021, and of 

which $1,681,441,000 shall become 

available on October 1, 2019, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

2020, for academic year 2019–

2020: Provided, That $378,000,000 shall be 

for part B of title I]:

This language provides for a portion of funds 

to be appropriated on a forward-funded basis 

for State Assessments. This language also 

provides that a portion of funds for 

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

is available on an advance-funded basis. The 

advance-funded language is deleted 

because no funding is requested for the 

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 

program.

2[...Provided further, That $1,249,673,000

shall be for part B of title IV...]

This language specifies the funding level for 

21st Century community learning centers. It 

is deleted because no funding is requested 

for this program.

3 [Provided further, That $36,897,000 shall be 

for part B of title VI and may be used for 

construction, renovation, and modernization 

of any elementary school, secondary school, 

or structure related to an elementary school 

or secondary school, run by the Department 

of Education of the State of Hawaii, that 

serves a predominantly Native Hawaiian 

student body]

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Native Hawaiian education program and 

authorizes the use of funds appropriated for 

school construction, renovation, and 

modernization. It is deleted because no 

funding is requested for this program.

4 [Provided further, That $35,953,000 shall be 

for part C of title VI and shall be awarded on 

a competitive basis, and also may be used 

for construction]

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Alaska Native education program and 

authorizes the use of funds appropriated for 

construction. It is deleted because no funding 

is requested for this program.

5 [Provided further, That $52,000,000 shall be 

available to carry out section 203 of the 

Educational Technical Assistance Act of 

2002 and the Secretary shall make such 

arrangements as determined to be necessary 

to ensure that the Bureau of Indian Education 

has access to services provided under this 

section]

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Comprehensive Centers program and 

authorizes the Secretary to provide the 

Bureau of Indian Education access to 

program services. It is deleted because no 

funding is requested for this program.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes 

D-4

Language Provision Explanation

6 Provided [further], That $16,699,000 shall 

be available to carry out the Supplemental 

Education Grants program for the Federated 

States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands

This language specifies the funding level for 

Supplemental Education Grants to the 

Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands

7 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.

8 [Provided further, That $185,840,000 shall 

be for part B of title V]

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Rural Education Achievement Program. It 

is deleted because no funding is requested 

for this program.

9 [Provided further, That $1,210,000,000 shall 

be available for grants under subpart 1 of 

part A of title IV]

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Student support and academic 

enrichment grants program. It is deleted 

because no funding is requested for this 

program.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-5

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2019 2020 2021

Discretionary:

DiscretionaryAppropriation......................................... $5,246,967 $ 5,404.967 $392,374

Total, discretionary appropriation ...... 5,246,967 5,404.967 392,374

Advance:

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

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

Total, budget authority ...................... 5,246,967 5,404.967 2,073,815
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-6

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2020................................................................................................. $5,404,967

2021.................................................................................................. 392,374

Net change ............................................................... -5,012,593

Decreases: 2020 base

Change

from base

Program:

Consolidate funding for 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 into a flexible block grant, the 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the 

Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), that would 

let States and local educational agencies decide how best 

to use Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

funds to meet the needs of their students. $5,003,693 -$5,003,693

Reduce funding for the State Assessments program 

because States may use ESED Block Grant funds to 

develop and implement new or improved assessment 

systems as authorized under the Competitive Grants for 

State Assessment program. 378,000 -8,900

Subtotal, decreases -5,012,593

Net change -5,012,593
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2020

Authorized

footnote

2020

Estimate

footnote

2021

Authorized

footnote

2021

Request

footnote

Supporting effective instruction State grants (ESEA IIA) $2,295,830 $2,131,830 $2,295,830 1 0

21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) 1,100,000 1,249,673 1,100,0001 0

State assessments (ESEA I-B, sections 1201-1203) 378,000 378,000 378,0001 $369,100

Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA 

Title VII-B) 85,000 101,500 85,000 0

Native Hawaiian Education (ESEA VI-B) 32,397 36,897 32,3971 0

Alaska Native education equity (ESEA VI-C) 31,453 35,953 31,4531 0

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

Rural education (ESEA V-B) 169,840 185,840 169,8401 0

Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free 

Association Act) 21,8652 16,699 22,3352 16,699

Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) 03 52,000 03 0

Student support and academic enrichment grants 

(ESEA IV-A-1) 1,600,000 1,210,000 1,600,000 1 0

Total definite authorization 5,714,385 5,714,855

Total appropriation 5,404,967 392,374

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

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 reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2021.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-8

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

2012 1,664,979 4,332,1021 4,570,1451 4,544,596

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

2013 1,219,357 4,394,8802 4,544,5962 4,397,391

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

2014 1,075,559 N/A3 4,676,8624 4,397,391

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

2015 966,923 N/A3 4,402,6745 4,402,671

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

2016 4,693,171 3,500,7206 4,134,7466 4,443,629

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

2017 4,658,409 4,799,9127 4,177,2397 4,408,5677

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

2018 697,321 2,369,9648 4,458,5678 5,158,4678

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

2019 645,214 5,258,4679 5,291,9679 5,246,9679

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

2020 675,614 6,016,470 5,305,96710 5,404,96710

(2020 Advance for 2021) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2021 392,374

(2021 Advance for 2022) (0)

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

Senate Committee action only. 2 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. 3 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 4 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 5 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

6 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. 7 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.

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

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

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141). 9 The levels for the House and Senate Allowance reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2019 

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

Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245). 10 The Senate allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects the Further Consolidated 

Appropriation Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-9D-9

Significant Items in FY 2020 Appropriations Reports

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants

House: The Committee is supportive of the Department's recognition of effective 

teaching and SEL as a vital, evidence-based field and is interested in how its 

newly established Office of Effective Teaching and Social and Emotional 

Learning will provide technical assistance to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) 

and LEAs in implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). In addition, 

the Committee is interested in how the office will disseminate knowledge of 

evidence-based SEL strategies from the Department's newly established Center 

to Improve Social and Emotional Learning and School Safety to external 

stakeholders and to Department offices responsible for competitive grant 

competitions. Therefore, within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the Committee 

directs the Department to brief the Committees on Appropriations on the Office of 

Effective Teaching and Social and Emotional Learning's plans for disseminating 

the Center to Improve Social and Emotional Learning and School Safety's 

clearinghouse of evidence-based strategies to internal and external stakeholders, 

including SEAs and LEAs, and the office's plans for leveraging the Center's 

knowledge of evidence-based SEL strategies to inform fiscal year 2020 grant 

competitions.

Response: The Department will brief the Committees within 60 days of enactment of the 

Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020.

Senate: The Committee expects funds reserved for technical assistance and capacity 

building to be used strictly to support SEAs and LEAs in carrying out authorized 

activities under this program. The Committee directs the Department to include 

information on the planned uses of these funds in the operating plan required 

under section 516 of this act, and to brief the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate prior to issuing any notice inviting 

applications.

In the fiscal year 2021 Congressional Justification, the Department shall provide 

current and planned expenditures, and include a plan for how resources will be 

spent to build the capacity of SEAs and LEAs and provide technical assistance. 

The plan should include how resources will be spent helping SEAs and LEAs vet 

evidence, implement evidence-based interventions, and incorporate evidencebased SSAE activities into school improvement strategies.

House: The Committee expects funds reserved for technical assistance and capacity 

building to be used strictly to support SEAs and LEAs in carrying out authorized 

activities under this program. The Committee directs the Department to include 

information on the planned uses of these funds in the operating plan required 

under section 516 of this act, and to brief the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate prior to issuing any notice inviting 

applications.

Response: The Department provided the requested information in the Student Support and 

Academic Enrichment Grants program narrative and will brief the Committees 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-10D-10

prior to issuing any notice inviting applications for discretionary grants supported 

with program funds.

Minibus: The Department should publish reports on these studies publicly and is 

encouraged to conduct such studies periodically as appropriate.

Response: The Department will publish reports on its studies of implementation of Student 

Support and Academic Enrichment Grants and may collect additional data under 

those studies in future years if appropriate.

Education for Homeless Children and Youth

Minibus: The Department shall brief the Committees no later than 60 days after enactment 

of this Act on the resources currently being devoted to monitoring compliance 

with ESEA accountability and State and local report card provisions related to 

homeless children and youth and supporting State educational agencies (SEA) 

and local educational agencies (LEA) in achieving and maintaining compliance 

with such provisions; the internal support within other program offices in the 

Department being provided to assist with administration of the Education for 

Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program; and the resources available for 

monitoring compliance with EHCY program requirements at the SEA and LEA 

level.

Senate: The Committee notes that earlier this year the Department implemented a 

reorganization of offices which in part altered the administration of the McKinneyVento program. The Committee would not want this reorganization to undermine 

the strengthening of the program that occurred in the reauthorization of the 

ESEA. Therefore, the Department is directed to brief the Senate Committees on 

Appropriations and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions no later than 30 days 

after enactment on the resources currently being devoted to monitoring 

compliance with ESSA accountability and State and local report card provisions 

related to homeless children and youth and supporting SEAs and LEAs in 

achieving and maintaining compliance with such provisions; the internal support 

within other program offices in the Department being provided to assist with 

administration of the EHCY program; and the resources available for monitoring 

compliance with EHCY program requirements at the SEA and LEA level.

Response: The Department will brief the Committees within the 60 days after enactment 

specified in the Act.

Alaska Native Education

Senate/Minibus:The Committee directs the Department to make every effort to ensure that 

grants are awarded well in advance of the school year, to maximize grantees’ 

ability to hire the necessary staff and have their programs ready to go with the 

start of Alaska’s school year in mid-August. The Committee continues to direct 

the Department 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 by providing these entities 

multiple opportunities for technical assistance in developing successful 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-11D-11

applications for these funds, both in Alaska and via various forms of 

telecommunications.

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.
D-12

Summary of Request

Click here for accessible version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2021 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Cat 

Code 2019 Appropriation

2020

Appropriation

2021 President's 

Budget

2021 President's Budget Compared to 

2020 Appropriation

Amount Percent

1.

Subtotal D 2,055,830 2,131,830 0 (2,131,830) -10

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Total, Appropriation D 5,246,967 5,404,967 392,374 (5,012,593) -92.74%

Total, Budget authority D 5,246,967 5,404,967 2,073,815 (3,331,152) -61.63%

Current 3,565,526 3,723,526 392,374 (3,331,152) -89.46%

Prior year's advance 1,681,441 1,681,441 1,681,441 0 0.00%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program 

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

School Improvement Programs

Supporting effective instruction State grants (ESEA II-A)

Annual appropriation D 374,389 450,389 0 (450,389) -100.00%

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

21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) D 1,221,673 1,249,673 0 (1,249,673) -100.00%

State assessments (ESEA I-B, section 1201-1203) D 378,000 378,000 369,100 (8,900) -2.35%

Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA Title VII-B) D 93,500 101,500 0 (101,500) -100.00%

Native Hawaiian education (ESEA VI-B) D 36,397 36,897 0 (36,897) -100.00%

Alaska Native education (ESEA VI-C) D 35,453 35,953 0 (35,953) -100.00%

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

Rural education (ESEA V-B) D 180,840 185,840 0 (185,840) -100.00%

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

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

Student support and academic enrichment grants (ESEA IV-A) D 1,170,000 1,210,000 0 (1,210,000) -100.00%
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-13

Summary of Request

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

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

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

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

and address the particular educational needs of special populations. 

The Administration is requesting approximately $392.4 million, $8.9 million less than the fiscal 

year 2020 funding level, for the following programs in this account:

• $369.1 million for State Assessments to support formula and competitive grants to States 

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

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

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

• $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.

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

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

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

Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003.

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

Grants, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, Education for Homeless Children and 

Youth, Native Hawaiian Education, Alaska Native Education, Rural Education, Comprehensive 

Centers, and Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants programs.

Instead, the Request would consolidate these programs into the proposed Elementary and 

Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant). ESED Block 

Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State and local educational agencies, which would 

have discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated programs, 

including activities currently supported by the programs in this account. For more information on 

the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

D-14

Activities:

Summ ary 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 2021 Authorization: $2,295,8301

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

Annual appropriation $450,389 0 -$450,389

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

Total 2,131,830 0 -2,131,830

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

Supporting Effective Instruction (SEI) State Grants provide formula grants to State educational 

agencies (SEAs), which subgrant most funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support 

activities designed to increase student achievement by improving the effectiveness of teachers,

principals, and other school leaders; increase the number of teachers, principals, and other 

school leaders who are effective in improving student academic achievement in schools; 

provide low-income and minority students greater access to effective teachers, principals, and 

other school leaders; and reduce class size. SEAs and LEAs have flexibility to carry out a wide 

variety of activities based on identified needs.

Funds are distributed to States by a formula that uses the number of children age 5 to 17 and 

the number of children age 5 to 17 from poor families, with a “hold harmless” provision that 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reduced by 14.29 percent. For fiscal year 2020, 42.84 percent of the funds are being allocated 

according to the hold-harmless amounts, with the remainder allocated by formula.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

D-15

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

children from low-income families, rising by 5 percent per year from 65 percent in 2017 to 

80 percent for 2020 and future years, with the remaining 20 percent allocated according to

States’ relative shares of the population aged 5 to 17. 

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the Department of the Interior and the Outlying Areas 

each receive one-half of 1 percent of the appropriation. The Department may reserve up to onehalf of 1 percent of funding for evaluation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

children aged 5 through 17 from low-income families.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

programs; and training teachers on the appropriate use of student data. LEAs may use funds to 

develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive programs and activities to improve teacher 

and school leader effectiveness, including evaluation and support systems; implement initiatives 

to assist in recruiting, hiring, and retaining effective teachers, especially in low-income schools; 

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

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

mechanisms to improve school working conditions.

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

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

used funds to reduce class size. (The estimates shown below 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.)
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

D-16

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

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

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

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

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

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

2020........................................................2,131,830

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the request would consolidate the SEI State Grants program into the 

proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED 

Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant 

programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as 

several related programs, into a single State formula grant program. 

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State educational agencies and local 

educational agencies (LEAs), which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized 

purpose of the consolidated programs, including activities supported by the SEI State Grants 

program such as professional development and class-size reduction. For more information on 

the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account.

7

18

25

35

66

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Professional development activities for...

Initiatives that promote professional...

Professional development activities for...

Hiring highly qualified teachers to...

Professional development activities for...

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

Supporting effective instruction State grants

D-17

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Funding for State awards $2,025,095 $2,099,959 0

Funding for Outlying Areas 10,228 10,606 0

Funding for BIE 10,228 10,606 0

Funding for evaluation 10,279 10,659 0

Range of State awards 9,857 - 229,490 10,299 - 238,130 0

Average State award 38,944 40,384 0

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

including SEI State Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department pooled 

$5,509 thousand in fiscal year 2019 and plans to pool $5,759 thousand in fiscal year 2020.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the Federal resources provided for the program as well as the resources 

and efforts invested by those served by the program. Targets have not been set for the program 

measures because baseline data are not yet available.

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

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program gauged the percentage of core academic 

classes taught by highly qualified teachers in elementary and secondary schools as a whole 

compared to the percentage in high poverty schools. The reauthorization of the ESEA 

eliminated highly qualified teacher requirements, and no performance data were collected for 

2017 (school year 2016-17), which was a transition year for SEAs and LEAs.1 The Department 

developed new measures for the program, which are:

• The number of States that decrease the gap between the percentage of inexperienced 

teachers in the highest poverty quartile and the lowest poverty quartile.

• The number of States that decrease the gap between the percentage of teachers with 

emergency or provisional credentials in the highest poverty quartile and the lowest poverty 

quartile.

• The number of States that decrease the gap between teachers who are not teaching in the 

subject or field for which they are certified or licensed teaching in the highest poverty 

quartile and the lowest poverty quartile.

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

Supporting effective instruction State grants

D-18

The reporting deadline for the school year 2017-18 data was December 12, 2018. Baseline data 

will be available in the fall of 2020; targets will be set after an examination of the baseline data.

Other performance information

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

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

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

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

recent impact evaluation of an intensive elementary school mathematics professional 

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

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

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

either the State assessment or on a study-administered math test.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, discussed the need for PD models that have a larger impact on teacher 

knowledge and practice as well as the need to better understand the aspects of teacher 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

effectiveness for very low-income students.)

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
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

D-19

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

incentives are provided. The Impact Evaluation of Moving High-Performing Teachers to 

Low-Performing schools, which was completed in 2015, showed that financial incentives 

($10,000 per year) were successful in attracting good teachers to low-performing schools, 

but once the incentives were discontinued, the high-performing teachers left at similar rates 

to other teachers. The transfer incentives had a positive effect on math and reading 

achievement in the elementary grades, and under some circumstances the policy was more 

cost-effective than a strategy of class size reduction. The study found no impact of the

transfer incentives in middle schools.

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

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

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

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

• Certain types of teacher preparation can be effective. A study on preservice teacher 

preparation, which included a sample of 3,300 novice teachers who received services from 

a diverse group of preparation providers, found that teachers who reported more frequent 

preparation experiences (such as practice and feedback but excluding coursework) with 

strategies for creating a productive learning environment were more effective in the 

classroom than were teachers who received fewer such experiences.

2 Teacher preparation 

experiences with strategies for promoting analytic thinking skills were not related to 

teachers’ effectiveness in the classroom. While the study has limitations, including that it 

was based on a purposive sample of teachers in upper elementary grades for which test 

scores were available and that preparation experiences were self-reported, it provides more 

information about teacher preparation than typically provided in the literature.

Professional development on data-driven instruction (DDI) is not necessarily effective in 

improving student achievement. An evaluation of support for using student data to inform 

teacher’s instruction3 assessed an intensive approach to supporting teachers' use of student 

data to tailor their instruction. The support included funding for a data coach of the schools' 

choosing as well as intensive professional development for coaches and school leaders on 

helping teachers use student data to inform their instruction. The study's DDI coaching and 

professional development did not increase teachers' data use or change their instructional 

practices and did not improve students' achievement. On average, students had similar 

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

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

Supporting effective instruction State grants

D-20

achievement in math and English/language arts whether they were in schools that received 

extra DDI coaching and professional development or not.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-21

21st Century community learning centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $1,100,0001

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$1,249,673 0 -$1,249,673

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

establish or expand centers that provide additional student learning opportunities through 

before- and after-school programs and summer school programs aimed at improving student 

academic outcomes. Centers, which also may offer training in parenting skills and family literacy 

services, must target their services primarily to students who attend schools identified for 

improvement under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) or other 

schools determined by local educational agencies (LEAs) to be in need of assistance. The 

program currently provides funding to approximately 10,200 centers serving 2.1 million students 

and 349,000 adults and family members. In the 2017–18 program year, approximately 752,000, 

or 36 percent, of all students served attended a center for 30 or more days during the academic 

year.

Program funds may be used for a broad range of activities, such as those that support a wellrounded education; financial literacy and environmental literacy programs; programs that 

support a healthy and active lifestyle; services for individuals with disabilities; activities for 

students who are English learners; cultural programs; telecommunications and technology 

education programs; expanded library service hours; family engagement and literacy programs; 

programs for students who have been truant, suspended, or expelled; drug and violence 

prevention activities; programs that focus on in-demand fields of the local workforce; and 

programs that build skills in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Funds also 

may support in-school activities as part of an expanded learning time program under which the 

regular school day has been extended to include at least 300 additional program hours.

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

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

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

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

21st Century community learning centers

D-22

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

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

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

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

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.

National activities for fiscal year 2020 will include competitive grants to States for subgrants to 

local providers that will offer opportunities to students outside regular school hours to 

participate in a career pathway program that leads to an industry-recognized credential in 

existing and emerging in-demand industry sectors and occupations identified by the State, 

including through completion of an apprenticeship or internship.

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

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

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

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

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

2020 ........................................................1,249,673

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST 

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the 21st CCLC program into the proposed 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), 

which would incorporate nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant programs 

authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as several related 

programs, into a single State formula grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State and local educational agencies, 

which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

D-23

programs, including activities currently supported by the 21st CCLC program. For more 

information on the ESED Block Grant, please see the Improving Elementary and Secondary 

Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to existing 21st CCLC National Activities grantees through the 

end of their approved project periods.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Funding for States awards $1,197,240 $1,224,680 0

SA Range of State awards 5,986–148,827 6,123–148,413 0

SA Average State award 23,024 23,552 0

SA Reservation for State activities 

(maximum) 59,862 61,234 0

SA Reservation for State 

administration (maximum) 23,945 24,494 0

Out-of-school-time career 

pathways program 0 1,500 0

Other national activities and 

evaluation 12,217 10,997 0

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education and the Outlying 

Areas 12,217 12,497 0

NOTES: 

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

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

authority to pool $1,520 thousand of evaluation funding from this program in fiscal year 2019 and may reserve funds 

for pooled evaluation in fiscal year 2020.

In fiscal year 2021, grant continuation costs of approximately $1,500 thousand would be paid for from a reservation of 

funds under the ESED Block Grant for the Out of School Time Career Pathways Program.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the Federal resources provided for the program as well as the resources 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

D-24

and efforts invested by those served by the program. No targets are provided in the tables 

below for fiscal year 2021 because under the President’s Request no formula projects would be 

funded in that year. However, the Department will collect data for the Out-of-School-Time 

Career Pathways Program using measures yet to be determined.

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

2016 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 48.2% 45.5% 47.2%

2017 40.0 40.0 40.0 51.4 47.6 50.0

2018 50.0 50.0 50.0 51.3 46.5 49.7

2019 50.0 50.0 50.0

2020 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

2016 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 46.7% 45.5% 46.3%

2017 48.5 48.5 48.5 50.0 48.1 49.4

2018 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.1 46.2 48.8

2019 50.0 50.0 50.0

2020 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 36 percent 

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

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

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

ages are not included in the columns disaggregated by grade level. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

D-25

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

2016 15.0% 25.0% 25.5% 19.1%

2017 15.0 25.0 25.4 19.1

2018 30.0 25.0 25.5 18.6

2019 30.0 25.0

2020 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 must 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

2016 60% 75% 75% 54.7% 54.4% 54.6%

2017 60 75 75 62.2 58.8 60.4

2018 60 60 60 63.1 60.7 62.4

2019 60 60 60

2020 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

D-26

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

performance measures by the deadline.

Year Target Actual

2016 95% 99%

2017 95 98

2018 95 100

2019 95

2020 95

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

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

Year Target Actual

2015 35 45

2016 35 90

2017 35 45

2018 35 55

2019 35

2020 35

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

monitoring visit report.

Year Target Actual

2015 4 17

2016 4 24

2017 4 24

2018 4 13

2019 4

2020 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. Changes in data for the efficiency measures are due in part to the volume 

and severity of the findings for each year. Ongoing issues with a small number of States have 

made the average number of weeks a State takes to resolve compliance findings significantly 

higher in recent years. 

Other performance information

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

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

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

21st Century community learning centers

D-27

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.

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

measures of the 21st CCLC program. As part of this effort, in 2019, the contractor and the 

Department hosted conference calls to hear from States, subgrantees, and other stakeholders 

regarding their experiences, challenges, and successes in measuring outcomes and what they 

see as appropriate performance measures of the program. The Department plans to announce

revised measures in 2020. 

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

D-28

State assessments

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $378,0001

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from 

2020 to 2021

$378,000 $369,100 -$8,900

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

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.

More specifically, as part of the statewide accountability systems required by the ESEA, the 

results of annual assessments in reading and mathematics must be used as a factor in 

determining whether States, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools are meeting longterm goals and interim measures of progress and to differentiate annually and meaningfully the 

performance of all schools. 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. Under section 1111(b)(2)(I) of the 

ESEA, for any year for which Congress appropriates less than a “trigger amount” of 

$369.1 million, States may defer the commencement or suspend the administration of State 

assessments required by the ESEA.

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

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

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

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

State assessments

D-29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the real world. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

that all assessments are worth taking. The Department has never reserved funds under this 

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

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

related activities.

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

any, of appropriations in excess of the trigger amount, makes discretionary 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 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

D-30

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

2020...........................................................378,000

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For State Assessments, the Request provides $369.1 million, the minimum “trigger amount” 

needed to ensure that States continue to administer the assessments required under Title I, 

Part A. The request is $8.9 million less than the fiscal year 2020 appropriation and would 

preclude awards under the Competitive Grants for State Assessment program. The Department 

also does not plan to reserve funds for the separately authorized Assessment System Audits 

program.

The Administration did not incorporate State Assessments into the Elementary and Secondary 

Education of the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant) in order to make clear that 

States may not stop administering assessments under Title I, Part A. Annual, high quality, 

statewide assessments aligned to challenging State academic standards are a critical element 

of the statewide accountability systems that each State must establish under the ESEA, 

providing parents and educators with information they need to enable students to be successful 

and make progress towards attainment of State-determined college- and career-ready 

academic standards. State assessments also help identify schools that are succeeding and 

schools where challenges remain in improving academic achievement and closing achievement 

gaps.

The fiscal year 2021 Request would help States continue to administer high-quality assessment 

systems as part of their ongoing implementation of the ESEA. Funds may be used to improve 

the quality of these assessment systems so that they measure higher order thinking skills; 

appropriately assess all students, including students with disabilities and English learners; and 

provide timelier and more useful data to students, teachers, and parents. States may also use 

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

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

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

carry out such audits may use their formula allocations for this purpose.

Although the request does not include funding for the Competitive Grants for State Assessment

program, States may use ESED Block Grant funds to develop and implement new or improved 

assessment systems.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

D-31

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Grants for State Assessments:

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

Estimated number of awards 52 52 52

Range of awards $3,317-$28,369 $3,317-$28,369 $3,317-$28,369

Average award $7,027 $7,027 $7,027

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

Competitive Grants for State 

Assessments:

Funding for new awards $8,811 $8,811 0

Number of new awards 4 2-3 0

Range of new awards $3,800-3,900 $3,800-3,900 0

Peer review of new award 

applications $89 $89 0

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 2021 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 

and implementation of the State assessments required under Title I of the ESEA. The 

performance measure is the number of States (including the District of Columbia and Puerto 

Rico) that have reading/language arts and mathematics assessments that align with the State's 

academic content standards for all students in grades 3–8 and in high school and science 

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

three grade spans (grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12). Beginning in school year 2018-19, each State 

must also demonstrate that assessments used to measure English Language Proficiency (ELP) 

of all English Learners are aligned with their State ELP standards. Success in meeting these 

requirements is determined primarily by formal peer reviews of State assessment systems by 

panels of external assessment experts. 

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

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

six additional States in 2017, and in 2018 the final eight States submitted academic 

assessments for review. Additionally, States reviewed in 2016 submitted additional evidence in 

succeeding years based on their peer review outcomes (5 in 2017, and 33 in 2018). In 2019, 

48 States submitted evidence for their ELP assessments, and 13 States submitted evidence for 

academic assessment peer review. The tables below show the number of States that were 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

D-32

determined to have partially met, substantially met, or met all requirements by assessment 

subject, grade, and type (general or alternate) as of August 2019, and also indicate the number 

of States where the outcome is pending. The Department expects to conduct peer reviews in 

2020 for approximately 35 States’ academic assessments, as well as peer reviews of ELP 

assessments for about four States.

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

because States revise their assessments periodically and must undergo peer review each time 

they make significant changes. For example, two States that received “met all requirements” 

designations in 2017 and 2018 have changed their assessments since then, thus triggering a 

new peer review cycle in 2019.

Reading/English Language Arts and Mathematics Assessments

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

School Alternate

Met All 

Requirements 11 9 5

Substantially Met 28 23 23

Partially Met 7 12 4

Does not meet 0 0 3

Pending Outcome 

Notification 5 6 5

Science

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

School Alternate

Met All 

Requirements 1 2 0

Substantially Met 13 13 7

Partially Met 3 5 3

Does not meet 1 0 4

Pending Outcome 

Notification 2 0 2

English Language Proficiency

Outcome ELP General ELP Alternate

Met All 

Requirements 0 0

Substantially Met 0 0

Partially Met 39 26

Does not meet 0 0

Pending Outcome 

Notification 8 8
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-33

Education for homeless children and youths

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $85,0001

Budget Authority:

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from 

2020 to 2021

$101,500 0 -$101,500

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

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

D-34

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

2020............................................................101,500

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the Education for Homeless Children and 

Youths program into the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged 

Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and 

competitive grant programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA), as well as related programs such as Education for Homeless Children and Youths, into

a single State formula grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State educational agencies (SEAs) 

and local educational agencies (LEAs), which would have discretion to use those funds for any 

purpose any authorized purpose of the consolidated programs, including all activities currently 

supported by the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program. In addition, both SEAs 

and LEAs would develop and implement plans consistent with sections 1111 and 1112 of the 

ESEA, respectively, which include provisions describing how they will meet the needs of 

homeless students, including through a range of services similar to those supported by the 

Education for Homeless Children and Youth program. SEAs and LEAs also would continue to 

maintain protections for homeless students consistent with the requirements of the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act and would report performance on State academic assessments 

and graduation rates for homeless students.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Amount for State grants $90,976 $98,888 0

Amount for State Gr ants Range of State awards 234–11,328 254–12,235 0

Amount for State Gr ants Average State award 1,750 1,902 0

Amount to BIE 935 1,015 0

Amount to Outlying Areas 94 102 0

National activities 1,496 1,496 0
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

D-35

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

efforts invested by those served by this program. No targets are provided for fiscal year 2021 

because under the President’s Request no projects would be funded in that year.

The Department adopted four new performance measures for the program in early 2019. The 

new performance measures are: (1) the percentage of homeless students in grades 3-8 who

meet or exceed proficiency on State assessments in reading/language arts; (2) the percentage 

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

mathematics; (3) the percentage of homeless students in grades pre-K-12 or 13 who are 

chronically absent; and (4) the 4-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate for students 

experiencing homelessness. The first two new measures are focused on the academic 

achievement of all homeless students in a State, as opposed to the measures the Department 

has been reporting on, which focus on the performance of homeless students in LEAs receiving 

subgrants under the program. Chronic absenteeism is a measure of the number of students 

who have missed more than 10 percent of their instructional time during their period of 

enrollment in half-day increments, and is often a better indicator of which students need more 

intervention and support to attend school regularly and persist. About two-thirds of States chose 

chronic absenteeism as an alternate accountability measure under their ESEA Consolidated 

State Plans. The adjusted cohort graduation rate will serve as a proxy for program performance 

at the secondary level. The Department expects to start reporting on these new measures by 

the end of calendar year 2020.

In addition to the new performance measures, the Department will continue to collect and report 

data on the following measures.

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

2016 77% 29% 77% 24%

2017 80 27 80 24

2018 80 28 80 23

2019 80 80

2020 80 80
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

D-36

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

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

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

Data for 2019 will be available in summer 2020.

Efficiency Measure

The Department 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

2016 40 37.4

2017 40 51.0

2018 40 39.0

2019 40

2020 40

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

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

changes to the program from included in the reauthorization. 

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-homelesschildren-report.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-37

Native Hawaiian education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $32,397 1, 2

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$36,897 0 -$36,897

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. 2 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Native Hawaiian Education program supports the provision of supplemental education 

services to the Native Hawaiian population. The program awards 3-year competitive grants to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

other entities.

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

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

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

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

$500,000 annually.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

2020.............................................................36,897
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

D-38

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the request would consolidate the Native Hawaiian Education program into 

the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED 

Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant 

programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as 

several related programs, into a single State formula grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State educational agencies and local 

educational agencies (LEAs), which would have discretion to fund any authorized purpose of 

the consolidated programs, including activities currently carried out by the Education for Native 

Hawaiians program. For more information on the ESED Block Grant, please see the Improving 

Elementary and Secondary Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to existing grantees for this program through the end of their 

approved project periods.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Amount for new awards $693 $26,847 0

Number of new awards 1 14 0

Amount for continuation awards $35,204 $9,186 0

Number of continuation awards 38 14 0

Native Hawaiian Education Council $500 $500 0

Peer review of new award applications 01 $364 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 2019, but may do so in fiscal year 2020.

Continuation costs of approximately $27,136 thousand for projects with outstanding continuation costs would be 

provided under the fiscal year 2021 request for the Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged 

Block Grant.

1The Department funded one new award in fiscal year 2019 from the fiscal year 2017 slate.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

D-39

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 Federal resources provided for this program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

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

2016 46% 48%

2017 47 49

2018 47 49

2019 48

2020 49

2021 49

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

2016 39% 40%

2017 40 41

2018 40 41

2019 41

2020 42

2021 43

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

2016 26% 28%

2017 28 28

2018 28 28

2019 29

2020 29

2021 30
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

D-40

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

readiness in literacy.

Year Target Actual

2016 45% 52%

2017 45 53

2018 45 54

2019 45

2020 45

2021 45

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

measure may not apply to all grantees in a given year.

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

2016 80% 84%

2017 81 85

2018 82 85

2019 83

2020 84

2021 85
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-41

Alaska Native education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $31,4531

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$35,953 0 -$35,953

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Alaska Native Education program supports supplemental educational programs and 

services designed to improve educational outcomes for Alaska Natives. The program awards 3-

year competitive grants to eligible applicants, which include Alaska Native organizations and 

entities located in Alaska with experience operating Alaska Native programs that have been 

granted a charter from an Alaska Native tribe or Alaska Native organization.

Allowable activities include the development and implementation of curricula and educational 

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

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

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

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

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

programs.

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

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

2020.............................................................35,953

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the request would consolidate the Alaska Native Education program into 

the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

D-42

Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant 

programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as 

several related programs, into a single State formula grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State educational agencies and local 

educational agencies (LEAs), which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized 

purpose of the consolidated programs, including activities consistent with the Alaska Native 

Education program that are designed to improve educational outcomes for Alaska Native 

students. For more information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and 

Secondary Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to existing grantees through the end of their approved project 

periods.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Amount for new awards $19,580 0 0

Number of new awards 20 0 0

Amount for continuation awards $15,656 $35,953 0

Number of continuation awards 36 40 0

Peer review of new award applications $217 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 2019, but may do so in fiscal year 

2020.

Continuation costs of approximately $24,485 thousand for projects with outstanding continuation costs 

would be provided under the fiscal year 2021 request for the Elementary and Secondary Education for 

the Disadvantaged Block Grant.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the Federal resources provided for the program as well as the resources 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

D-43

and efforts invested by those served by the program. Data for 2016, 2017, and 2018 will be 

available in winter 2020.

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

2016 46%

2017 47

2018 48

2019 49

2020 50

2021 51

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

2016 55% 54%

2017 56

2018 57

2019 58

2020 59

2021 60

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

2016 55% 2.9%

2017 56

2018 57

2019 58

2020 59

2021 60

Additional Information: After working with a data specialist to review data for this measure, 

the Department discovered that it had incorrectly reported prior years’ data on this measure. 

The Department has corrected the data and will provide technical assistance to grantees to 

improve performance on the high school graduation measure.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-44

Training and advisory services

(Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$6,575 $6,575 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

and religion. To carry out those activities, the Department awarded 5-year grants in fiscal 

year 2016 to Equity Assistance Centers (EACs) in four geographic regions serving the 

50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Outlying Areas of American Samoa, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

D-45

The EACs provide services to school districts upon request. Typical activities include 

disseminating information on successful educational practices and on legal requirements related 

to nondiscrimination in educational programs. Other activities include training designed to 

develop educators' skills in such areas as the identification of race and sex bias in instructional 

materials and technical assistance in the identification and selection of appropriate educational 

programs to meet the needs of a diverse student body. Topics covered by the EACs go beyond 

a traditional view of desegregation to include areas such as school climate, disproportionate 

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

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

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

2020...............................................................6,575

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Administration requests level funding of $6.6 million for Training and 

Advisory Services. Fiscal year 2021 funds would support the first year of Equity Assistance 

Center grant awards that would be made under a new competition and provide services similar 

to those provided by the 2016 cohort of EACs.

In fiscal year 2019, the EACs provided targeted and intensive assistance to 37 State 

educational agencies (SEAs), 190 local educational agencies (LEAs), and 164 schools in 

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

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

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

health disparities, supporting English learners, and implementing socioeconomic integration 

strategies. Of the EAC clients that participated in an annual Client Satisfaction Survey,

83 percent indicated satisfaction with the services they received, a 3 percentage point increase 

from the previous year.

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

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

provided intensive, research-based support to a school district to increase hiring and retention 

of African-American faculty and certified staff in response to a consent order. Services included 

assisting the district in reviewing and revising hiring practices and training for staff. The EAC 

provided school board training on the consent order and revision of policies and designed and 

delivered school and district administrator training on the interconnection between recruitment, 

hiring and retention. School and district administrators, faculty and staff participated in training 

related to diversity, equity and inclusion, cultural competency, and implicit bias. As a result, the 

district made several changes to its faculty recruitment and retention policies based on jointly 

discussed best practice recommendations, and eventually, after adoption of these revised 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

D-46

policies and practices, reported hiring five highly-qualified African-American staff and educators, 

doubling the district’s current African-American employee count. 

As an additional example, another school district requested support from its EAC to address 

racial disparities in academic achievement and disciplinary infractions. The EAC served as a 

critical thought partner with the district to develop improvements to its existing plan and assisted 

the district in creating a “bridging the gap” plan that addresses five areas: graduation rates; 

grade level proficiency; participation and performance in accelerated courses; disciplinary 

infractions; and eligibility for exceptional students.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Amount for grant awards $6,534 $6,534 $6,475

Data collection $41 $41 $50

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $50

Number of awards 4 4 4

Average size award $1,634 $1,634 $1,619

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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the resources 

and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Except where stated otherwise below, data for the following measures are collected through an 

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

Research Division of the Library of Congress, under an interagency agreement with the 

Department. 

Goal: To support access and equity in public schools and help school districts solve 

equity problems in education related to race, sex, national origin, and religion.

Objective: Provide coordinated technical assistance and training to State educational agencies 

and public school districts in addressing equity in education.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

D-47

GPRA Measures

Measure: The percentage of customers reporting an increase in awareness or knowledge 

resulting from technical assistance provided.

Year Target

(Combined Only)

Combined

Actual

Awareness

Actual

Knowledge

Actual

2017 82% 82% 76%

2018 85% 80 80 75

2019 83 84 81 84

2020 86

2021 88

Additional information: Customers were asked whether they increased their awareness or 

knowledge and, if so to what extent, on different topics for which they received assistance. The 

“Combined Actual” percentage is the higher of the two reported percentages for Awareness and 

Knowledge. 

Measure: The percentage of customers who report changed policies or practices related to 

providing students with a full opportunity for participation in all educational programs regardless 

of their sex, race, religion, and national origin.

Year Target Actual

2017 76%

2018 79% 75

2019 78 75

2020 78

2021 81

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

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

Measure: The percentage of customers reporting an increase in capacity resulting from 

technical assistance provided.

Year Target Actual

2017 74%

2018 77% 71

2019 74 89

2020 90

2021 90
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

D-48

Additional information: Customers were asked whether their organizations received 

assistance to (1) build inclusive leadership, (2) identify and/or leverage mutually beneficial 

relationships or partnerships, or (3) obtain and/or leverage tangible materials or systems, and, if 

so, the extent to which their capacity increased after receiving assistance from the EAC. Data 

reflect the percentage of respondents who said their capacity increased to a moderate or great 

extent in at least one of these ways. 

Project Measures 

Measure: The percentage of technical assistance requests received from organizations that 

were accepted during the performance period.

Year Target Actual

2017 95%

2018 96% 96

2019 97 98

2020 98

2021 98

Additional information: Data are from EAC grantee annual performance reports. 

Measure: The percentage of technical assistance requests received from new (not previously 

served by the EAC) organizations during the performance period.

Year Target Actual

2017 61%

2018 68% 72

2019 75 41

2020 48

2021 55

Additional information: Data are from EAC grantee annual performance reports. The 

significantly lower percentage on this measure in 2019 may be due to the high number of 

existing clients who reported high satisfaction with the services received and requested 

additional services in this school year than in previous years. The Department expects that, due 

to an overall increase in the number of requests received and an increase in the number of 

returning clients, this percentage may remain static in the final 2 years of the performance 

period.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

D-49

Measure: The percentage of customers willing to request additional technical assistance and/or 

refer another organization to an EAC for technical assistance during the performance period.

Year Target

(Combined Only)

Combined

Actual

Request Additional

Actual

Refer

Actual

2017 83% 79% 83%

2018 85% 86 84 86

2019 88 89 89 87

2020 91

2021 93

Additional information: Customers were asked (1) how likely they were to request additional 

assistance from the EAC and (2) how likely they were to refer another agency to an EAC for 

technical assistance.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-50

Rural education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $169,8401, 2

Budget Authority:

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$185,840 0 -$185,840

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021. 2 The funds appropriated to carry out Title V, Part B are to be distributed equally between Subparts 1 and 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) includes two distinct programs to assist 

rural local educational agencies (LEAs) in carrying out activities to help improve the quality of 

teaching and learning in their schools. The Small, Rural School Achievement program (SRSA) 

provides funds to rural LEAs that serve small numbers of students; the Rural and Low-Income 

School program (RLIS) provides funds to rural LEAs that serve high concentrations of students

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

between the SRSA and the RLIS programs. 

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.

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 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

D-51

(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 their applicable funding for allowable activities 

authorized under the five programs specified above.

Rural and Low-Income School Program (Subpart 2)

Under the RLIS program the Department makes formula allocations to States based on each 

State’s share of children in ADA in all eligible LEAs. Eligible LEAs must: (1) have a Census 

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

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

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

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

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

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

concentrations of poor students. If an RLIS-eligible LEA is in a State whose State educational 

agency (SEA) does not submit an RLIS application, the LEA may apply directly to the 

Department to receive the funding it would have generated, based on its ADA, for its State had 

the SEA applied for RLIS. These LEAs are referred to in the statute as Specially Qualified 

Agencies (SQAs).

LEAs may use program funds for: (1) Part A of Title I (Improving Basic Programs Operated by 

Local Educational Agencies); (2) Part A of Title II (Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants); 

(3) Title III (English Language Acquisition State Grants); (4) Part A of Title IV (Student Support 

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

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

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

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.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands) fn

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

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

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

2019 ...........................................................180,840

2020 ...........................................................185,840
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 

Rural education 

D-52 

 

 

 

 

(SRSA)

RSA

SRSA

SRSA

SRSA

SRSA

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST 

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the REAP program into the proposed 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), 

which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant programs 

authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as several related 

programs, into a single State formula grant program. 

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State and local educational agencies, 

which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated 

programs, including providing supplemental funds to rural or low-income LEAs and schools. For 

more information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary 

Education account. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021 

Small, rural school achievement 

Total funding $90,420 $92,920 0 

Number of LEAs receiving grants 3,947 3,947 0 

Average LEA grant 

Average award per student (whole $) 

$23 

$85 

$24 

$88 

0 

0 

Range of awards to LEAs 0–$60 0–$60 0 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 

Rural education 

D-53 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(RLIS)

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

RLIS

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021 

Rural and low income schools 

Total funding $90,420 $92,920 0 

Amount for State and SQA grants $89,305 $92,991 0 

Amount for BIE $452 $465 0 

Amount for Outlying Areas $452 $465 0 

Amount for Pooled Evaluation $211 0 0 

Number of States receiving grants 45 45 0 

Number of LEAs receiving subgrants 2,494 2,494 0 

Number of LEAs receiving SQA grants 17 17 0 

Average State grant $1,977 $2,044 0 

Average LEA subgrant $36 $37 0 

Average SQA grant $20 $20 0 

Average award per student (whole $) $21 $22 0 

Range of awards to States $3–$9,316 $3–$9,573 0 

Estimated range of subgrants to LEAs 0–$271 0–$278 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 reserved 

$211 thousand for this purpose from RLIS in fiscal year 2019, and may reserve funds for this purpose from SRSA or 

RLIS in fiscal year 2020. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the Federal resources provided for this program as well as the 

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

fiscal year 2021 because under the President’s Request no projects would be funded in that 

year. 

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 

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 

2016 100% 57% 

2017 100 52 

2018 100 48 

2019 100 

2020 100 

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the SRSA program 

who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in mathematics. 

Year Target Actual 

2016 100% 50% 

2017 100 47 

2018 100 43 

2019 100 

2020 100 

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the RLIS program who 

score proficient or better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts. 

Year Target Actual 

2016 100% 48% 

2017 100 46 

2018 100 43 

2019 100 

2020 100 

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the RLIS program who 

score proficient or better on States’ assessments in mathematics. 

Year Target Actual 

2016 100% 44% 

2017 100 43 

2018 100 40 

2019 100 

2020 100 

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 

D-54 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 

Rural education 

D-55 

 

 

 

 

required all students to be proficient in reading/language arts and mathematics by 2014. These 

targets are no longer relevant under the current authorization. The Department anticipates 

setting targets consistent with the reauthorized program and based on actual data in 2020. 

Objective: SRSA-eligible rural school districts will use the REAP flexibility authority. 

Measure: The percentage of SRSA-eligible school districts using the REAP flexibility authority 

(known as REAP-Flex prior to 2017, now the alternative fund use authority (AFUA)). 

Year Target Actual 

2016 65% 44% 

2017 65 46 

2018 65 43 

2019 65 

2020 65 

Additional information: While this measure was developed to capture the percentage of 

eligible LEAs actually using the flexibility authority, the best available information is on the 

number of LEAs reporting to the State their intent to use this authority. Since there is little 

reason to believe that LEAs would provide this notification and not use the authority, reported 

intent serves as a reasonable proxy. 

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 for both SRSA and RLIS) 

and to provide educator professional development (45 percent for SRSA and 58 percent for 

RLIS). Forty-six percent of SRSA LEAs reported exercising REAP-Flex (now the AFUA). The 

majority of both LEA and State REAP coordinators were highly satisfied with REAP as a whole. 

However, they provided recommendations for improvement to REAP in three categories: 

1) improved timelines for eligibility and award determination, 2) more information on allowable 

uses of funds and REAP-flex, and 3) revised eligibility criteria. Upon reviewing this report and 

additional feedback received from State and LEA grantees, in fiscal year 2018 the Department 

revised the REAP grant making timeline in order to make awards earlier than in previous years. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-56

Supplemental education grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $22,3351

Budget Authority: 

2020 Appropriation

2021 Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$16,699 $16,699 0

1 The 2021 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 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

D-57

RMI with the U.S. Government. These agreements call for the funds to be used at the local 

school level for direct educational services focused on school readiness, early childhood 

education, elementary and secondary education, vocational training, adult and family literacy, 

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

used for construction or remodeling, the general operating costs of school systems, or teacher 

salaries (except the salaries of teachers who carry out programs supported by the grants). 

The FSM and the RMI may request technical assistance from ED, HHS, or DOL, on a 

reimbursement basis. Since fiscal year 2015, appropriations acts have allowed ED to reserve up 

to 5 percent of Supplemental Education Grants funds to provide technical assistance for these 

grants, but the Department has yet to exercise this authority.

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

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands) fn

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

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

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

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

2020 .............................................................16,699

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

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

fiscal year 2020 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. 

The RMI and the FSM have used Supplemental Education Grant funds for early childhood 

education, education improvement programs, vocational and skills training, and professional 

development. Both the RMI and the FSM have also used funds to prepare students for jobs 

resulting from the Guam military build-up. The Administration anticipates that fiscal year 2021 

funding would be used for similar purposes.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Grant to the Federated States of 

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

Grant to the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands 5,557 5,557 5,557
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

D-58

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 collected were inadequate, 

inconsistent, and incomplete. Tests to measure achievement were not administered in 2005 and 

2006, and some of the tests 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

D-59

Comprehensive centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$52,000 0 -$52,000

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009; no reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal 

year 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Comprehensive Centers program is authorized to fund not fewer than 20 Comprehensive 

Centers, including regional centers and content centers, that provide training, technical 

assistance, and professional development to build State capacity to provide high-quality 

education for all students, particularly those in low-performing local educational agencies (LEAs) 

and schools. Centers provide support to State educational agencies (SEAs), and through them, 

to LEAs and schools. The Comprehensive Centers are part of a Department technical 

assistance network that includes the Regional Educational Laboratories, the What Works 

Clearinghouse, Equity Assistance Centers, Office of Special Education Program-funded 

technical assistance centers, and other program-specific centers designed to provide support to 

SEAs, LEAs, and schools.

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

currently supports 19 regional centers and 1 national center that received 5-year grants in 

2019. The regional centers provide broad assistance to SEAs in their assigned States, following 

annual State service plans developed in consultation with each State’s Chief State School 

Officer. The national center develops an annual service plan in consultation with the Department 

and the regional centers. The national service plan takes into account problems identified in the 

regional centers’ State service plans, Department monitoring and audit findings, and emerging 

national education trends. The national center also maintains the Comprehensive Center 

website and disseminates information to a wide variety of education stakeholders, including 

parents. The program also supports one content center, first funded in 2016, that focuses on 

students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.

The 2019 competition included two competitive preference priorities for the regional centers 

(“Promoting Effective Instruction in Classrooms and Schools” and “Empowering Families and 

Individuals to Choose a High-Quality Education That Meets Their Unique Needs”) and three 

competitive preference priorities for the national center (“Promoting Effective Instruction in 

Classrooms and Schools”; “Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math Education, 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

D-60

with a Particular Focus on Computer Science”; and “Empowering Families and Individuals to 

Choose a High-Quality Education That Meets Their Unique Needs”). All successful applicants 

addressed these competitive preference priorities. In addition, the competition included a novice 

applicant priority for both regional centers and the national center; one successful regional 

center applicant was a novice applicant. Information on the new Centers is available at 

https://www.compcenternetwork.org/.

Each regional Center serves a specific set of States, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Regional Comprehensive Centers

The Education Technical Assistance Act (ETAA) does not authorize the Comprehensive 

Centers to provide direct support to the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). However, 

appropriations language in fiscal years 2017 through 2020 directed the Department to ensure 

that BIE has access to services from the Comprehensive Centers. The Department addressed 

this language in the 2019 competition by identifying Region 13 to support the BIE and budgeting 

$400,000 annually for the work.

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 to determine the extent to which each 

center meets its objectives. The evaluation of the 2012 Centers was completed in 2019; the 

Department is developing plans for an evaluation of the 2019 Comprehensive Centers.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

D-61

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands) fn

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

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

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

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

2020 .............................................................52,000

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the Comprehensive Centers program into 

the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED 

Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant 

programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as 

related programs such as Comprehensive Centers, into a single State formula grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to SEAs and LEAs, which would have 

discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated programs, 

including activities currently supported by the Comprehensive Centers. For more information on 

the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account. 

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to the existing Comprehensive Centers through the end of 

their approved project periods. In fiscal year 2021, the Department anticipates the continuation 

costs for the existing grantees will be approximately $49 million.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Funding for new grant awards $50,242 0 0

Funding for continuation grant awardsfundi ng 1,500 $51,000 0

Evaluation 0 1,000 0

Peer review of new award applications 258 0 0

Total fundi ng 52,000 52,000 0

Average Grant Award $2,464 $2,405 NA

Range of Grant Awards $1,000−$6,471 $1,000−$6,270 NA

Number of Grant Awards 21 21 NA

NOTE: Continuation costs of approximately $49,400 thousand for projects with outstanding continuation 

costs would be provided under the fiscal year 2021 request for the Elementary and Secondary Education 

for the Disadvantaged Block Grant.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

D-62

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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the resources 

and efforts invested by those served by the program. No targets are provided for 2021 because

baseline data are not yet available.

The Comprehensive Centers measures are designed to analyze the quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of the services provided by the centers. The data were collected and reported using 

client surveys developed by the Centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of 

client surveys used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. The data are 

from the Centers that received awards in the 2012 grant competition. Data for each year are 

from the first 9 months of the fiscal year (e.g., for 2018, the data are from October 2017 through 

June 2018; for 2019, the data are from October 2018 through June 2019). The final year of data 

for the 2012 cohort is 2019; these data will be available in February 2020.

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

2016 80% 96%

2017 80 96

2018 80 96

2019 80

Additional information: In 2017, 20 of the 22 Centers in the 2012 grant cohort provided data 

for this measure, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 81 to 100 percent. In 

2018, 21 of the 22 Centers provided data, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 

86 to 100 percent.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high relevance to educational policy or practice by clients.

Year Target Actual

2016 80% 93%

2017 80 97

2018 80 96

2019 80
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

D-63

Additional information: In 2017, 20 of the 22 Centers in the 2012 grant cohort provided data 

for this measure, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 91 to 100 percent. In 

2018, 21 of the 22 Centers provided data, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 

91 to 100 percent.

Objective: Technical assistance products and services will be used to improve results for 

students in the target areas.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high usefulness to educational policy or practice by clients.

Year Target Actual

2016 80% 93%

2017 80 95

2018 80 95

2019 80

Additional information: In 2017, 20 of the 22 Centers in the 2012 grant cohort provided data 

for this measure, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 91 to 100 percent. In 

2018, 21 of the 22 Centers provided data, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 

84 to 100 percent.

The Department established the following measures in the Notice of Final Priorities published 

on April 4, 2019, for the 2019 Centers:

• The extent to which Comprehensive Center clients are satisfied with the quality, usefulness, 

and relevance of services provided.

• The extent to which Comprehensive Centers provide services and products to a wide range 

of recipients.

• The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate that capacity-building services 

were implemented as intended.

• The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate recipient outcomes were met.

Baseline data will be available in late 2020.

Other Performance Information

The Department conducted a descriptive study of the 2012 cohort of Comprehensive Centers’ 

activities and outcomes that examined how the individual centers intended to build SEA 

capacity (their theories of action) and what types of activities they conducted to build capacity.1

Data collection began in the spring of 2015; IES released the final report in October 2019.

The data collection consisted of interviews, surveys, and reviews of Center work to address 

questions about the design, implementation, and outcomes of the Centers’ products and 1 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_techcenters12.asp
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

D-64

technical assistance. The evaluation focused on two of the seven Federal priority areas in which 

Centers provided 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.

This evaluation, which cost approximately $7.9 million, sought to address how the Centers 

designed and implemented technical assistance (TA), what challenges they encountered, and 

what outcomes they achieved. Data were collected through surveys of Center staff and TA 

recipients, annual interviews with Center staff and TA recipients, activity reports that provided 

information on Center projects, and a review of Center documents.

Key takeaways from the study include:

• Overall, Centers and their TA recipients reported that the Centers’ TA improved the capacity 

of SEAs to meet their goals.

• Centers shared similar approaches to the design and implementation of their TA. Those 

Center practices perceived to be instrumental to building capacity included: engaging a 

broad array of stakeholders to provide input on policy, providing products and tools for SEA 

staff to use as they took greater ownership of policy design and implementation, imparting 

organizational practices and structures resilient to SEA turnover and policy shifts, and 

flexibly adapting TA in response to changing priorities and needs.

Centers and their TA recipients pointed to a few areas for program improvement, including 

clarification of the Centers’ role and expected outcomes related to their work with LEAs, and 

further guidance for SEAs about how best to use the Centers.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

D-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 2021 Authorization: $1,600,0001

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021 

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$1,210,000 0 -$1,210,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants are intended to improve academic 

achievement by increasing the capacity of States and local educational agencies (LEAs) to 

provide students with access to a well-rounded education and improve school conditions and 

use of technology.

The Department allocates program funds to States by formula based on each State’s share of 

funds received under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), for the preceding fiscal year. No State may receive less than 0.5 percent of 

the total program appropriation except for Puerto Rico, which may not receive more than this 

amount. The Department also reserves funds for the outlying areas and for the Bureau of Indian 

Education (BIE) of the Department of the Interior (0.5 percent in each case) and to provide 

technical assistance and capacity building (2 percent).

States must use not less than 95 percent of funds to make subgrants to LEAs and not more 

than 1 percent for administrative costs, and may use any remaining funds for State-level 

activities consistent with the purposes of the program, which may include providing technical 

assistance or direct support to LEAs to carry out authorized activities. Under the authorizing 

statute, States allocate subgrants to LEAs on the same formula basis as above (i.e., shares of 

Title I, Part A funds), except that no LEA may receive less than $10,000. LEAs may form 

consortia and combine subgrant allocations to carry out activities jointly. States and LEAs must 

use funds to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used for 

authorized activities.

LEAs receiving formula allocations of $30,000 or more must conduct a comprehensive needs 

assessment and use not less than 20 percent of their allocations for activities to support wellrounded educational opportunities, not less than 20 percent for activities to support safe and 

healthy students, and a portion to support the effective use of technology. LEAs receiving less 

than $30,000 must use funds to carry out activities in at least one of these three areas. LEAs 

must prioritize support to schools with the greatest needs as determined by the LEA, schools 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

D-66

with the highest concentrations of Title I formula children, schools that are identified for 

comprehensive support and improvement or implementing targeted support and improvement 

plans, or schools that are identified as persistently dangerous schools. LEAs may reserve up to 

2 percent of their allocations for administrative costs.

LEAs may use funds for a range of activities to support a well-rounded education, including: 

providing college and career counseling, including financial literacy activities; promoting student 

engagement and success through music and the arts; improving instruction in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (including computer science); increasing the 

availability of accelerated learning courses, such as Advanced Placement and International 

Baccalaureate courses, as well as dual or concurrent enrollment programs and early college 

high schools; strengthening instruction in American history, civics, economics, geography, and 

government; and providing foreign language instruction and environmental education.

Authorized activities to support safe and healthy students include: evidence-based drug and 

violence prevention programs; school-based mental health services, including through 

partnerships with mental health or health care entities; activities to support a healthy, active 

lifestyle, including physical education; activities to help prevent bullying and harassment; 

mentoring and school counseling; school dropout and reentry programs; high-quality training for 

school personnel in such areas as suicide prevention, crisis management, and conflict 

resolution; child sexual abuse awareness and prevention programs; designing and 

implementing plans to reduce exclusionary discipline practices; and implementing schoolwide 

positive behavioral interventions and supports. In these areas, LEAs may use funds to 

implement pay for success initiatives (i.e., performance-based agreements under which, among 

other things, payments are made only after achievement of outcomes).

Lastly, LEAs may pursue such educational technology-related activities as: providing school 

and LEA personnel with tools and resources to use technology effectively to improve instruction, 

support teacher collaboration, and personalize learning; building technological capacity and 

infrastructure, including by procuring content and purchasing devices, equipment, and software; 

providing specialized or rigorous technology-based academic courses; carrying out projects 

blending classroom and technology-based instruction in a way that provides students with 

control over the time, path, or pace of learning; providing professional development; and 

providing students in rural and underserved areas with access to digital learning experience and 

resources, including online courses. Of funds supporting the effective use of technology, LEAs 

may use not more than 15 percent to purchase technology infrastructure.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants is a forward-funded program. Funds become 

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

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

Student support and academic enrichment grants

D-67

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2016.......................................................................0

2017..........................................................$400,000

2018.........................................................1,100,000

2019.........................................................1,170,000

2020.........................................................1,210,000

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the request would consolidate the Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants program into the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the 

Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), which would incorporate nearly all currently 

funded formula and competitive grant programs authorized by the ESEA, as well as several 

related programs, into a single State formula grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to States and LEAs, which would have 

discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated programs, 

including all activities currently supported by Title IV, Part A. For more information on the ESED 

Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards under competitive grant programs consolidated into the block 

grant, including competitive grant programs supported under this program’s reservation for 

technical assistance and capacity building.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

D-68

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Amount to States $1,129,225 $1,167,831 0

Range of State awards 5,646–143,389 5,839–144,762 0

Average State award 21,716 22,458 0

Amount to Outlying Areas 5,821 6,020 0

Amount to BIE 5,821 6,020 0

Technical assistance and 

capacity building 23,283 24,079 0

Evaluation 5,850 6,050 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 reserved $5,850 thousand 

for pooled evaluation in fiscal year 2019, and expects to reserve funds for this purpose in fiscal year 2020.

In fiscal year 2021, grant continuation costs of approximately $17,750 thousand would be paid for from a reservation 

of funds under the proposed ESED Block Grant.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measurement

The Department collects performance information for Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants primarily through the annual Consolidated State Performance Report 

(CSPR) and descriptive implementation studies.

Consolidated State Performance Reports

Consistent with the program statute’s public reporting requirements for States and LEAs, the 

Department is collecting State-aggregate data on LEA uses of funds through the CSPR, 

beginning with basic information (e.g., the percentage of funds spent by LEAs in each of the 

three program content areas, the percentage of LEAs spending funds in each area) in the 

school year 2018-2019 CSPR. Results from the first data collection are expected to be available 

in fall 2020.

“First-Look” Implementation Study
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

D-69

The Department has also collected information on use of funds in school year 2018-2019 based 

on State analyses of LEA applications for fiscal year 2018 program funding, as well as other 

basic program information. Key findings from this contractor-supported study, which the 

Department expects to release on its website in February 2020, include the following:

• Less than one-third (31 percent) of LEAs receiving a fiscal year 2018 formula allocation 

received at least $30,000.

• Most LEAs (74 percent) retained at least some of their fiscal year 2018 funds for use 

under the program, as opposed to transferring their entire allocation to other ESEA 

programs, as permitted under statute.

• An estimated 73 percent of LEAs that retained fiscal year 2018 funds used the funds to 

support well-rounded educational opportunities, 70 percent used funds to support safe 

and healthy students, and 53 percent to support the effective use of technology. 

• On average, LEAs spent an estimated 44 percent of funds for well-rounded educational 

opportunities, 41 percent of funds to support safe and healthy students, and 14 percent 

on the effective use of technology. 

• Two percent of LEAs receiving a fiscal year 2018 allocation operated in consortia.

Formal Implementation Study

In addition, the Department is conducting a formal implementation study that will examine local 

uses of funds, State-level program activities, and other aspects of local implementation (e.g., 

how LEAs conduct comprehensive needs assessments and use them in deciding how to spend 

program funds). The study will consist of surveys of State program coordinators in all States, a 

nationally representative survey of LEAs, and site visits to a select number of LEAs to collect indepth program implementation information. The Department plans to initiate data collection in 

summer 2020 (covering the use of funds during school year 2019-2020), with a descriptive 

report expected in fall 2021. We also expect to release a set of briefs on implementation of 

specific authorized activities, which may include activities of interest to the Administration (e.g., 

school safety activities, opioid abuse prevention and mitigation) or for which LEAs frequently 

report spending program funds.

Other Performance Information

Technical Assistance and Capacity Building

The Department is engaged in a variety of actions using funds reserved for technical assistance 

and capacity building under Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants. These funds 

typically are used in the year following the year of appropriation; consequently, the Department 

will support the following key activities in fiscal year 2020 using fiscal year 2019 funds:
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

D-70

• A program technical assistance center providing general resources as well as 

customized technical assistance to States to increase their capacity to assist LEAs in 

carrying out program activities, including through a network of subject matter experts 

who can help identify activities and interventions across the program content areas that 

are evidence-based and can be incorporated into broader school improvement efforts 

(approximately $3.2 million).

• A center focused on building the capacity of States and LEAs to promote a well-rounded 

education by implementing evidence-based practices and programs in social and 

emotional learning ($565 thousand).

• A technical assistance provider assisting LEAs that seek to use Title IV-A funds to 

improve school conditions for student learning by implementing positive behavioral 

interventions and supports frameworks ($750 thousand).

• A national center, initially supported with funds under the former School Improvement 

Grants program, for disseminating evidence-based practices in addressing chronic 

absenteeism, including early-warning systems and mentoring ($750 thousand).

• School crime and safety surveys administered or supported by the National Center for 

Education Statistics, including the School Survey on Crime and Safety, a survey of 

public school principals, and the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey, a survey of students ages 12 through 18 ($2.1 million).

• Awards under the Trauma Recovery Demonstration Grants program, which supports

model programs that enable low-income students who have experienced trauma to 

seek trauma-specific mental-health services from the provider that best meets the 

student’s needs, as well as technical assistance to award recipients ($5.8 million).

Other notable ongoing activities supported with funds reserved in prior years include:

• A new National Educational Technology Plan and related policy briefs providing 

guidance to States, LEAs, and other stakeholders on identifying and implementing 

innovative and evidence-based approaches for using technology to support teaching and 

learning.

• A pilot challenge for developing online competency-based career and technical 

education (CTE) models that can be replicated and adapted in CTE programs and that

enable students to stay in their communities while receiving in-demand skills and 

credentials in areas such as coding, computer science, cybersecurity, and healthcare

information technology.

Lastly, the Department is considering using fiscal year 2019 funds in fiscal year 2020 to support 

new competitive grant programs designed to identify and document innovative ways to increase 

the number of well-rounded educational opportunities available to our Nation’s students, which 

may include Course Access Demonstration Grants supporting model programs that provide 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

D-71

access to course options that would otherwise not be available in a student’s school. This 

includes specialized coursework and courses that are more rigorous than the regular curricula.
D-72

State Tables