Department of Education

INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fiscal Year 2016 Request 

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................G-1

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

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers .............................................................................G-10

Summary of Changes ...........................................................................................................G-11

Authorizing Legislation..........................................................................................................G-14

Appropriations History...........................................................................................................G-16

Significant Items in FY 2015 Appropriations Reports.............................................................G-17

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................G-19

Activities:

Investing in innovation ......................................................................................................G-23

Excellent educators grants................................................................................................G-34

Teacher and principal pathways:

Teacher and principal pathways ...................................................................................G-42

Transition to teaching ...................................................................................................G-48

School leadership.........................................................................................................G-56

Charter schools grants......................................................................................................G-62

Magnet schools assistance...............................................................................................G-71

Advanced placement ........................................................................................................G-76

Ready-to-learn television ..................................................................................................G-81

Fund for the Improvement of Education:

Fund for the improvement of education: programs of national significance...................G-87

Leveraging what works.................................................................................................G-94

Arts in education...........................................................................................................G-97

Next generation high schools..........................................................................................G-103

Teaching for tomorrow....................................................................................................G-108
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Appropriations Language

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

D of title II, parts B, C, and D of title V of the ESEA, and section 14007 of division A of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended, $1,102,111,000:1 Provided, 

That up to $120,000,000 shall be available through December 31, 2015 for section 14007 of 

division A of Public Law 111-5, and up to 5 percent of such funds may be used for technical 

assistance and the evaluation of activities carried out under such section:2 Provided further, 

That the education facilities clearinghouse established through a competitive award process in 

fiscal year 2013 is authorized to collect and disseminate information on effective educational 

practices and the latest research regarding the planning, design, financing, construction, 

improvement, operation, and maintenance of safe, healthy, high-performance public facilities for 

early learning programs, kindergarten through grade 12, and higher education:3 Provided 

further, That $230,000,000 of the funds for subpart 1 of part D of title V of the ESEA shall be for 

competitive grants to local educational agencies, including charter schools that are local 

educational agencies, or States, or partnerships of: (1) a local educational agency, a State, or 

both; and (2) at least one nonprofit organization to develop and implement performance-based 

compensation systems for teachers, principals, and other personnel in high-need schools:

Provided further, That such performance-based compensation systems must consider gains in 

student academic achievement as well as classroom evaluations conducted multiple times 

during each school year among other factors and provide educators with incentives to take on 

additional responsibilities and leadership roles: Provided further, That recipients of such grants 

shall demonstrate that such performance-based compensation systems are developed with the 

input of teachers and school leaders in the schools and local educational agencies to be served 

by the grant: Provided further, That recipients of such grants may use such funds to develop or 

improve systems and tools (which may be developed and used for the entire local educational 

G-1
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

agency or only for schools served under the grant) that would enhance the quality and success 

of the compensation system, such as high-quality teacher evaluations and tools to measure 

growth in student achievement: Provided further, That applications for such grants shall include 

a plan to sustain financially the activities conducted and systems developed under the grant 

once the grant period has expired:4 Provided further, That up to 5 percent of such funds for 

competitive grants shall be available for technical assistance, training, peer review of 

applications, program outreach, and evaluation activities:5 Provided further, That $250,000,000 

of the funds for part D of title V of the ESEA shall be available through December 31, 2015 for 

carrying out, in accordance with the applicable requirements of part D of title V of the ESEA, a 

preschool development grants program: Provided further, That the Secretary, jointly with the 

Secretary of HHS, shall make competitive awards to States for activities that build the capacity 

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

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

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

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

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

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

families at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line: Provided further, That subgrantees 

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

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

educational agencies, in order to carry out the requirements of the subgrant:6 Provided 

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

for technical assistance, evaluation, and other national activities related to such grants:7

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

be for the Full-Service Community Schools program:8 Provided further, That of the funds 

G-2
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

available for part B of title V of the ESEA, the Secretary shall use up to $11,000,000 to carry out 

activities under section 5205(b) and shall use not less than $13,000,000 for subpart 2: Provided 

further, That of the funds available for subpart 1 of part B of title V of the ESEA, and 

notwithstanding section 5205(a), the Secretary shall reserve up to $75,000,000 to make multiple 

awards to non-profit charter management organizations and other entities that are not for-profit 

entities for the replication and expansion of successful charter school models and shall reserve 

not less than $11,000,000 to carry out the activities described in section 5205(a), including 

improving quality and oversight of charter schools and providing technical assistance and grants 

to authorized public chartering agencies in order to increase the number of high-performing 

charter schools: Provided further, That funds available for part B of title V of the ESEA may be 

used for grants that support preschool education in charter schools:9 Provided further, That 

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

accountable authorized public chartering agencies through such activities as providing technical 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

timely, and independent audits of the school's financial statements that are filed with the 

school's authorized public chartering agency; and demonstrate improved student academic 

achievement; and (2) authorized public chartering agencies use increases in student academic 

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

G-3
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

of the most important factors when determining to renew or revoke a school's charter.10]

(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2015.)

NOTES

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

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

these programs will be proposed.

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

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriation language.

G-4
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 [For carrying out activities authorized by 

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

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

of the ESEA, and section 14007 of division A 

of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009, as amended, $1,102,111,000:]

This language appropriates funds for the 

following programs: Advanced Placement, 

School Leadership, Transition to Teaching, 

Ready-to-Learn Television, Charter Schools 

Grants, Magnet Schools Assistance, Teacher 

Incentive Fund, Fund for the Improvement of 

Education: Programs of National 

Significance, Arts in Education, and Investing 

in Innovation.

2 [Provided, That up to $120,000,000 shall be 

available through December 31, 2015 for 

section 14007 of division A of Public Law 

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

be used for technical assistance and the 

evaluation of activities carried out under such 

section:]

This language earmarks funds for the 

Investing in Innovation program, gives the 

Department an additional 3 months beyond 

the end of fiscal year 2015 to obligate the 

funding, and allows the Department to use a 

portion of the funding for technical assistance 

and evaluation.

3 [Provided further, That the education 

facilities clearinghouse established through a 

competitive award process in fiscal year 

2013 is authorized to collect and disseminate 

information on effective educational practices 

and the latest research regarding the 

planning, design, financing, construction, 

improvement, operation, and maintenance of 

safe, healthy, high-performance public 

facilities for early learning programs, 

kindergarten through grade 12, and higher 

education:]

This language allows funds awarded to the 

current Educational Facilities Clearinghouse 

grantee to be used to collect and disseminate 

information on research and effective 

practices regarding facilities for early learning 

programs and higher education, in addition to 

those activities for kindergarten through 

grade 12.

G-5
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

Language Provision Explanation

4 [Provided further, That $230,000,000 of the 

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

ESEA shall be for competitive grants to local 

educational agencies, including charter 

schools that are local educational agencies, 

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

educational agency, a State, or both; and 

(2) at least one nonprofit organization to 

develop and implement performance-based 

compensation systems for teachers, 

principals, and other personnel in high-need 

schools: Provided further, That such 

performance-based compensation systems 

must consider gains in student academic 

achievement as well as classroom 

evaluations conducted multiple times during 

each school year among other factors and 

provide educators with incentives to take on 

additional responsibilities and leadership 

roles: Provided further, That recipients of 

such grants shall demonstrate that such 

performance-based compensation systems 

are developed with the input of teachers and 

school leaders in the schools and local 

educational agencies to be served by the 

grant: Provided further, That recipients of 

such grants may use such funds to develop 

or improve systems and tools (which may be 

developed and used for the entire local 

educational agency or only for schools 

served under the grant) that would enhance 

the quality and success of the compensation 

system, such as high-quality teacher 

evaluations and tools to measure growth in 

student achievement: Provided further, That 

applications for such grants shall include a 

plan to sustain financially the activities 

conducted and systems developed under the 

grant once the grant period has expired:]

This language provides funding for the 

Teacher Incentive Fund and describes 

eligibility and other requirements for the 

program. 

G-6
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

Language Provision Explanation

5 [Provided further, That up to 5 percent of 

such funds for competitive grants shall be 

available for technical assistance, training, 

peer review of applications, program 

outreach, and evaluation activities:]

This language allows the Secretary to use a 

portion of the amount provided for the 

Teacher Incentive Fund for technical 

assistance, training, peer review of 

applications, program outreach, and 

evaluation activities.

6 [Provided further, That $250,000,000 of the 

funds for part D of title V of the ESEA shall 

be available through December 31, 2015 for 

carrying out, in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of part D of title V of 

the ESEA, a preschool development grants 

program: Provided further, That the 

Secretary, jointly with the Secretary of HHS, 

shall make competitive awards to States for 

activities that build the capacity within the 

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

comprehensive services and family 

engagement, for preschool-aged children 

from families at or below 200 percent of the 

Federal poverty line: Provided further, That 

each State may subgrant a portion of such 

grant funds to local educational agencies and 

other early learning providers (including, but 

not limited to, Head Start programs and 

licensed child care providers), or consortia 

thereof, for the implementation of high-quality 

preschool programs for children from families 

at or below 200 percent of the Federal 

poverty line: Provided further, That 

subgrantees that are local educational 

agencies shall form strong partnerships with 

early learning providers and that subgrantees 

that are early learning providers shall form 

strong partnerships with local educational 

agencies, in order to carry out the 

requirements of the subgrant: ]

This language provides funds for preschool 

development grants to build capacity in early 

childhood care and education, requires the 

Secretary to jointly administer the grants with 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

and establishes eligibility requirements for 

participants.

G-7
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

7 [Provided further, That up to 3 percent of 

such funds for preschool development grants 

shall be available for technical assistance, 

evaluation, and other national activities 

related to such grants:]

This language allows the Secretary to use a 

portion of the funding provided for preschool 

development grants for technical assistance, 

evaluation, and other national activities 

related to such grants.

8 [Provided further, That $10,000,000 of 

funds available under part D of title V of the 

ESEA shall be for the Full-Service 

Community Schools program:]

This language provides funds for Full-Service

Community Schools grants.

9 [Provided further, That of the funds 

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

Secretary shall use up to $11,000,000 to 

carry out activities under section 5205(b) and 

shall use not less than $13,000,000 for 

subpart 2: Provided further, That of the 

funds available for subpart 1 of part B of title 

V of the ESEA, and notwithstanding section 

5205(a), the Secretary shall reserve up to 

$75,000,000 to make multiple awards to nonprofit charter management organizations and 

other entities that are not for-profit entities for 

the replication and expansion of successful 

charter school models and shall reserve not 

less than $11,000,000 to carry out the 

activities described in section 5205(a), 

including improving quality and oversight of 

charter schools and providing technical 

assistance and grants to authorized public 

chartering agencies in order to increase the 

number of high-performing charter schools:

Provided further, That funds available for part 

B of title V of the ESEA may be used for 

grants that support preschool education in 

charter schools:]

This language establishes, from the Charter 

Schools Grants appropriation, a maximum 

amount for State Facilities Incentive grants 

and a minimum amount for Credit 

Enhancement for Charter School Facilities 

grants, allows the Secretary to reserve funds 

appropriated for Charter Schools Grants to 

make awards to charter management 

organizations and other entities for the 

replication and expansion of successful 

charter school models, allows the Secretary 

to reserve a portion of the appropriation for 

national activities, and allows grants under 

the program to be used for preschool 

education.

G-8
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

10 [Provided further, That each application 

submitted pursuant to section 5203(a) shall 

describe a plan to monitor and hold 

accountable authorized public chartering 

agencies through such activities as providing 

technical assistance or establishing a 

professional development program, which 

may include evaluation, planning, training, 

and systems development for staff of 

authorized public chartering agencies to 

improve the capacity of such agencies in the 

State to authorize, monitor, and hold 

accountable charter schools: Provided

further, That each application submitted 

pursuant to section 5203(a) shall contain 

assurances that State law, regulations, or 

other policies require that: (1) each 

authorized charter school in the State 

operate under a legally binding charter or 

performance contract between itself and the 

school's authorized public chartering agency 

that describes the rights and responsibilities 

of the school and the public chartering 

agency; conduct annual, timely, and 

independent audits of the school's financial 

statements that are filed with the school's 

authorized public chartering agency; and 

demonstrate improved student academic 

achievement; and (2) authorized public 

chartering agencies use increases in student 

academic achievement for all groups of 

students described in section 

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

most important factors when determining to 

renew or revoke a school's charter.]

This language establishes application 

requirements for grants to State educational 

agencies under the Charter Schools Program 

that go beyond the requirements in the 

authorizing statute.

G-9
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2014 2015 2016

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation...................................................... $931,317 $852,111 $1,601,559

Mandatory:

Appropriation..................................................... 0 0 1,000,000

Total, discretionary and mandatory 

appropriation .................................................. 931,317 852,111 2,601,559

G-10
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................................................ $852,111

2016........................................................................................... 2,601,559

Net change from 2015............................... +1,749,448

Increases: 2015 base

Change

from base

Program:

Program Increase for Investing in Innovation program to build 

on the program’s demonstrated success in funding 

innovative strategies and practices that have been 

shown to be effective in improving educational 

outcomes for students and expand the number of 

grant awards in priority areas. $120,000 +$180,000

Program Increase for Excellent Educators Grants (currently 

the Teacher Incentive Fund) to support evidencebased State and local initiatives to strengthen 

systems for preparing, supporting, and retaining 

effective teachers and principals in high-need 

districts and schools. 230,000 +120,000

Program Initial funding for Teacher and Principal Pathways 

to support the recruitment, competitive selection, 

preparation, and placement of new teachers and 

principals for high-need schools. 0 +138,762

Program Increase for Charter Schools Grants to increase the 

supply of high-quality public educational options 

available to students, especially students attending 

low-performing schools, by creating and expanding 

effective charter schools. 253,172 +121,828

Program Initial funding for the Leveraging What Works Pilot 

to provide grants to local educational agencies 

(LEAs) to support the innovative use of 

comprehensive, evidence-based strategies to 

improve student outcomes. 0 +100,000

G-11
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Changes—continued 

(dollars in thousands)

Increases: 2015 base

Change

from base

Program:

Initial funding for the new Next Generation High 

Schools program to transform teaching and 

learning in high schools by encouraging 

partnerships among LEAs, postsecondary 

institutions, and other entities such as businesses 

and nonprofit organizations to prepare students for 

college and careers. 0 +$125,000

Mandatory funding for the Teaching for Tomorrow

initiative, which would fund competitive grants to

support States and districts that transform the ways 

they recruit and prepare new teachers and support 

teachers in the classroom. 0

 

+1,000,000

Subtotal, increases +1,785,590

G-12
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Changes—continued 

(dollars in thousands)

Decreases: 2015 base

Change

from base

Program:

Consolidation of the Transition to Teaching 

program into the proposed Teacher and Principal 

Pathways programs. $13,700 -$13,700

Consolidation of the School Leadership program 

into the proposed Teacher and Principal Pathways 

programs. 16,368 -16,368

Decrease for the Fund for the Improvement in

Education, which would focus on a non-cognitive 

skills initiative, interagency strategies to 

strengthen services to disconnected youth, and an 

initiative to enhance communities’ tracking of and 

performance on multiple outcomes for youth. The 

request does not include funding for awards under 

the Innovative Approaches to Literacy initiative. 48,000 -6,074

Subtotal, decreases -36,142

Net change +1,749,448

G-13
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Estimate

footnote

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016

Request

footnote

Investing in innovation (ARRA-XIV-14007) 0 1 $120,000 To be determined1 $300,000

Excellent educators grants (ESEA V-D-1) 0 2 230,000 To be determined2 350,000

Teacher and principal pathways:

Teacher and principal pathways (proposed 

legislation) -- 3 -- To be determined3 138,762

Transition to teaching (ESEA II-C-1-B) 0 4 13,700 04 0

School leadership (ESEA II-A-5-2151(b)) 0 4 16,368 04 0

Charter schools grants (ESEA V-B) 0 2 253,172 To be determined 2 375,000

Magnet schools assistance (ESEA V-C) 0 2 91,647 To be determined2 91,647

Advanced placement (ESEA I-G) 0 2 28,483 To be determined2 28,483

Ready-to-learn television (ESEA II-D-3) 0 2 25,741 To be determined2 25,741

Fund for the Improvement of Education:

FIE programs of national significance (ESEA V-D-1) 0 2 48,0005 To be determined2 41,926

Leveraging what works pilot (Proposed legislation) -- 3 -- To be determined3 100.000

Arts in education (ESEA V-D, subpart 15) 0 2 25,000 To be determined2 25,000

Next generation high schools (proposed legislation) -- 3 -- To be determined3 125,000

Teaching for tomorrow (proposed legislation) -- 3 -- To be determined3 1,000,000

Unfunded authorizations

(UA)Advanced credentialing (ESEA II-A-5-2521(c)) 0 6 0 06 0

(UA)Voluntary public school choice (ESEA V-B-3) 0 6 0 06 0

(UA)Ready to teach (ESEA V-D-8) 0 6 0 06 0

(UA)Exchanges with historic whaling and trading partners 

(ESEA V-D-12) 0 6 0 06 0

G-14

G-14
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Authorizing Legislation—continued

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Estimate

footnote

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016

Request

footnote

(UA)Parental information and resource centers (ESEA V-D16) 0 6 0 06 0

(UA)Women’s educational equity (ESEA V-D-21) 0 6 0 0 

6 0

Total definite authorization 0 0

Total discretionary appropriation $852,111 $1,601,559

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 1,376,559

Portion of request not authorized 225,000

Total mandatory appropriation 0 1,000,000

1 The program is authorized in FY 2015 through appropriations language; authorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016. 2 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016. 3 Authorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016. 4 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2016 under new legislation. 5 The FY 2015 Appropriations Act provided $250,000 thousand under the Fund for the Improvement of Education: Programs of National Significance for 

competitive awards to States for early childhood care and education. This funding is included as Preschool Development Grants under the proposed School 

Readiness account. 6 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. No appropriations language or reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

G-15

G-15
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Foot

-

note Appropriation Footnote

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

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

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

Recovery Act Supplemental 

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

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

Rescission (PL 111-226) 

(Discretionary)

-10,700

2011 Discretionary 6,330,000 1,870,123 4 2,224,8433 1,856,1795

2012 Discretionary 4,995,000 821,411 6 1,740,2126 1,527,536

2013 Discretionary 4,332,166 799,133 7 1,545,9667 1,447,637

2014 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A 8 1,331,598 931,317

2015 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A 8 868,7219 852,111

2015 Mandatory 5,000,000 N/A 8 09 0

2016 Discretionary 1,601,559

2016 Mandatory 1,000,000

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

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

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

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

Senate Committee action only. 7 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 8 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 9

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

G-16
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2015 Appropriations Reports

Educational Equity

Senate: The Committee believes that the Department will be able to support improved 

educational equity and opportunity through its 50 State strategy on teacher 

equity. Research indicates that teacher quality is the biggest in-school factor

related to student academic achievement, so a more equitable distribution of 

effective teachers and school leaders would help reduce educational opportunity 

gaps that exist today. The Committee believes that the Department should move 

forward expeditiously in announcing this strategy and engaging stakeholders in 

this effort. The Committee expects the Department to provide an update on 

current activity and a timeline for planned activity in this area not later than 

30 days after enactment of this act. 

Response: In July 2014, the Secretary announced the Excellent Educators for All initiative, 

designed to move America toward the day when every student in every public 

school is taught by excellent educators. As part of the initiative, consistent with 

section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA), each State educational agency (SEA) must submit to the Department a 

State Plan to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators that ensures “poor 

and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by 

inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.” These State Plans are due 

on June 1, 2015. States are expected to conduct meaningful consultation with a 

wide range of stakeholders, including students, teachers, unions, non-profit 

teacher organizations, principals, district leaders, parents, civil rights groups, and 

other key stakeholders. The Department has released draft guidance on 

developing State Plans and is providing technical assistance through the Center 

on Great Teachers and Leaders and the Equitable Access Support Network. 

More information is on the Department’s website at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/resources.html. 

Early Education and Care

Explanatory

Statement: The Departments of Health and Human Services and Education are directed, in 

consultation with the heads of all federal agencies that administer federal early 

education and care programs, to provide to the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate and relevant authorizing 

Committees the report on the review of federal early learning and care programs 

required by section 13 of Public Law 113-186. 

Response: The Department will work with the Department of Health and Human Services to 

provide the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and 

the Senate and relevant authorizing Committees the report required by section 

13 of Public Law 113-186. 

G-17
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2015 Appropriations Reports—continued 

Investing in Innovation

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

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

technical assistance. The Committee expects to be notified in advance of the 

proposed uses of these funds.

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

and evaluation funds before carrying out activities with those funds.

Explanatory

Statement: The Department is directed to establish an absolute priority in the investing in

innovation notice inviting applications for funds available in this act for the

implementation of comprehensive high school reform strategies that will increase

the number and percentage of students who graduate from high school and 

enroll in postsecondary education without the need for remediation and with the 

ability to think critically, solve complex problems, evaluate arguments on the 

basis of evidence, and communicate effectively. This competition should target 

schools where not less than 40 percent of the students to be served will be from 

low-income families as calculated under section 1113 of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act.

Response: The Department will include an absolute priority for high school reform in the 

2015 Investing in Innovation grant competition. 

G-18
G-19

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2016 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2016

Category 2014 2015 President's 

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Innovation and Improvement

 1. Investing in innovation (ARRA section 14007) D 141,602 120,000 300,000 180,000 150.000%

 2. Excellent educators grants (ESEA V-D-1) D 288,771 230,000 350,000 120,000 52.174%

 3. Teacher and principal pathways:

(a) Teacher and principal pathways (proposed legislation) D 0 0 138,762 138,762 ---

(b) Transition to teaching (ESEA II-C-1-B) D 13,762 13,700 0 (13,700) -100.000%

(c) School leadership (ESEA section 2151(b)) D 25,763 16,368 0 (16,368) -100.000%

Subtotal 39,525 30,068 138,762 108,694 361.494%

 4. Charter schools grants (ESEA V-B) D 248,172 253,172 375,000 121,828 48.121%

 5. Magnet schools assistance (ESEA V-C) D 91,647 91,647 91,647 0 0.000%

 6. Advanced placement (ESEA I-G) D 28,483 28,483 28,483 0 0.000%

 7. Ready-to-learn television (ESEA II-D-3) D 25,741 25,741 25,741 0 0.000%

 8. Fund for the Improvement of Education (ESEA V-D): 

(a) Programs of national significance (subpart 1) D 42,376 48,000 41,926 (6,074) -12.654%

(b) Leveraging what works (proposed legislation) D 0 0 100,000 100,000 ---

(c) Arts in education (subpart 15) D 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 0.000%

Subtotal 67,376 73,000 166,926 93,926 128.666%

 9. Next generation high schools (proposed legislation) D 0 0 125,000 125,000 ---

 10. Teaching for tomorrow (proposed legislation) M 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 ---

Total 1 931,317 852,111 2,601,559 1,749,448 205.308%

Discretionary D 931,317 852,111 1,601,559 749,448 87.952%

Mandatory M 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 ---

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

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

For mandatory programs, the levels shown in the 2014 Appropriation column reflect the 7.2 percent sequester that went into effect October 1, 2013, and the levels shown in the 2015 Appropriation column

reflect the 7.3 percent sequester that went into effect October 1, 2014, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25).

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Excludes $250,000 thousand for Preschool Development Grants provided under Race to the Top in the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2014, and $250,000 thousand for Preschool Development Grants 

provided under the Fund for the Improvement of Education in the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2015. These funds are shown in the proposed School Readiness account.

2016 President's Budget 

Compared to 2015 Appropriation

Summary of Request
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Request

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

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

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

providing parents with expanded options for the education of their children; and transforming 

high schools through models of real-world experiences and personalized learning. The 

Administration requests a total of $1.6 billion in discretionary funds.

Supporting Research and Innovation

The Administration requests $521.2 million to support efforts to drive State and local research 

and innovation. Specifically, the request includes:

• $300.0 million for the Investing in Innovation program, an increase of $120 million, to build 

on the program’s demonstrated success by supporting a higher number of awards in priority 

areas and expanding the program’s portfolio of evidence-based approaches to tackle 

common issues facing school districts and communities. In addition, in order to create 

incentives to leverage existing public education funding, including Federal formula funding, 

to support activities that are evidence-based and more likely to improve student outcomes, 

the Administration will seek appropriations language providing grantees with new flexibility 

to use Federal, State, or local public funds to meet the program’s requirement for matching 

funds.

• $100.0 million for a new Leveraging What Works Pilot for districts that agree to use the 

grant—as well as a portion of their existing formula funds—to implement evidence based 

strategies and interventions, evaluate those interventions, and report publicly on school level 

expenditure and outcome data.

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

distribution of educational video programming for preschool and elementary school children 

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

• $25.0 million for the Arts in Education program to support model projects and programs to 

integrate arts education into the regular elementary school and secondary school 

curriculum, through grants to support model development and dissemination and 

professional development for arts educators.

• $41.9 million for the Fund for the Improvement of Education: Programs of National 

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

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

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

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

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

non-cognitive skills like self-control and social and emotional skills; $5.0 million to support 

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

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

outcomes for at-risk youth using existing data sets.

G-20
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Request—continued

Supporting Educators

The Administration requests $488.8 million for programs that would provide both formula grants 

and competitive awards to help States and LEAs increase the effectiveness of teachers and 

principals.

• $350.0 million for Excellent Educators Grants to support evidence-based State and local 

initiatives to strengthen systems for preparing, supporting, and retaining effective teachers 

and principals in high-need districts and schools. 

• $138.8 million for new Teacher and Principal Pathways to support investments in the 

recruitment, competitive selection, preparation, and placement of new teachers and 

principals for high-need schools.

These new programs would replace several current activities that address teaching and school 

leadership issues: Teacher Incentive Fund, Transition to Teaching, School Leadership, 

and Teacher Quality Partnerships (in the Higher Education account). 

The Administration proposes $1.0 billion in mandatory funding for the Teaching for Tomorrow, 

which would fund competitive grants to support States and districts that transform the ways they 

recruit and prepare new teachers and support teachers in the classroom.

Expanding Educational Options

The Administration requests $375.0 million for Charter Schools Grants to support the start-up, 

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

priority in the President’s budget for supporting effective models of school reform and would be 

coupled by new authority for State grantees to make subgrants to charter management 

organizations and other nonprofit organizations to replicate and expand schools with 

demonstrated records of improving student achievement and attainment. Funds would also 

support information dissemination activities and grants to improve charter schools’ access to 

facilities.

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

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

$28.5 million for the Advanced Placement programs, which under the Administration’s 

proposal would help provide access for low-income students to an expanded range of advanced 

course programs and tests, including dual-enrollment programs and early college high schools.

Next Generation High Schools

The Administration requests $125.0 million for a new, competitive Next Generation High 

Schools program to transform the high school experience and more effectively prepare 

students for college and careers by using Federal, State, and local resources to create learning 

models that are rigorous, relevant, and focus on real-world experiences and incorporate 

personalized learning and career and college exploration. Special consideration would be given 

G-21
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Request—continued

to projects designed to improve readiness for postsecondary education and careers in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.

 

G-22
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Activities:

Investing in innovation

(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Section 14007)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

PP2015 2016 Change

$120,000 $300,000 +$180,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Investing in Innovation (i3) program supports innovative and proven approaches that

address persistent education challenges while also building knowledge of what works in 

education. Authorized under Section 14007 of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 

2009 (the Recovery Act), the i3 program uses a tiered-evidence framework to direct larger 

awards to projects with the strongest evidence base and supports promising projects that are 

willing to undergo rigorous evaluation. Grantees use funds to: (1) scale up strategies for which 

there is strong evidence (Scale-up grants); (2) validate and expand efforts for which there is 

moderate evidence (Validation grants); or (3) develop and test promising approaches for which 

there is evidence of promise or a strong theory, but for which efficacy has not been 

systematically studied (Development grants). All i3 grantees are required to obtain matching 

funds from the private sector (matching requirements also differ by funding tier) to build support 

for their efforts, and increase their project’s potential for sustainability.

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

agencies or to non-profit organizations (in partnership with schools or districts); all grantees 

must demonstrate that they have had recent success in improving student achievement. Since 

2010, the Department has awarded over $1 billion under the program to 143 grantees that have 

secured over $200 million in private sector contributions to their projects.

Implementation of i3-supported projects is accompanied by an evaluation by independent 

researchers of the projects’ impact on student achievement. The program provides significant 

technical assistance to grantees to ensure evaluations are rigorous and produce information 

that can be used by researchers and practitioners alike. Evaluations of Validation and Scale-up 

grants are expected to meet the Institute of Education Science’s What Works Clearinghouse 

standards with or without reservations, so that the largest investments are based on the highest 

level of rigor regarding efficacy. Findings are shared publically, so that the entire field benefits 

from lessons learned through i3. The i3 program not only contributes to building the evidence 

base of what works in education, but also helps education organizations improve their capacity 

to conduct rigorous research and incorporate evaluation when trying out new strategies, and 

supports researchers in designing and implementing evaluations that are of real-time, practical 

use to practitioners.

G-23
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Investing in innovation

The Department chooses competition priorities based on several criteria. The Department aims 

to fund projects in priority areas where there is a significant need to build evidence about what 

works. The Department also seeks to balance the i3 portfolio to ensure that investments span 

important topic areas over time so that there is a knowledge base across a diverse set of 

domains, including for priorities for which funding is not available elsewhere. Finally, the 

Department factors in the final appropriation level to reflect a realistic number of priorities. In 

response to feedback from the field, the Department plans to scale back the number and 

specificity of priorities for the fiscal year 2015 competition, creating greater flexibility for the field 

to seek and obtain funding for its best ideas within a narrower set of priorities. The Department 

is considering the following priorities for the fiscal year 2015 competition: teacher effectiveness 

and equity; principal effectiveness; standards and assessments; science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM); technology; and non-cognitive skills. As requested by 

Congress, there is also a new absolute priority for high schools, and the program will continue 

supporting rural applicants across all of the absolute priority areas.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2016, the Administration requests $300 million for the Investing in Innovation (i3) program, 

an increase of $180 million over the 2015 appropriation. The request reflects the 

Administration’s commitment to reclaim the role envisioned for i3 when the program was 

created with an initial investment of $650 million under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. Since its launch in 2010, i3 has been heavily oversubscribed: the 

Department has received 4,041 applications or pre-applications, but made only 143 grants 

through 2014, for a total application-success rate of 3.5 percent. In addition, a portion of the 

requested funds would be used to support activities to be carried out by the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency-Education (ARPA-ED).

The proposed increase would allow the program to build on its demonstrated success, reaching 

more children and building more evidence and capacity. Additional funding would support 

greater numbers of the larger Scale-up awards that the Department anticipates making as 

applicants seek to build on the positive results of Development and Validation grants made in 

previous years that are ready to be taken to scale. The strong evidence required to receive a

Scale-up grant ensures that larger amounts of funding are going towards investments that are 

most effective. 

Scale-up grants are demonstrating success to date. There are promising results from rigorous 

studies of the all three Scale-up grant evaluations that have released preliminary evaluation 

G-24
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Investing in innovation

results (summarized below). The Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, a nonpartisan 

organization, notes that these results are “a notable departure from the usual findings of weak 

or no positive effects in large randomized trials in education. If the findings hold up in longerterm study reports, they would constitute an important validation of i3’s evidence-based 

approach to scale up.”

As the Coalition notes, results for these three grantees include the following: 

• Reading Recovery: This program provides struggling first grade readers with one-onone tutoring by highly-trained, certified teachers for 30 minutes daily for a 3–5 month 

period. Reading Recovery was found to have a sizable, statistically-significant effect on 

reading comprehension. On average, the Reading Recovery group scored at the 

39th percentile nationally on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) versus the 

19th percentile for the control group.

• Success for All (SFA): SFA is a comprehensive school-wide reform program, primarily 

for high-poverty elementary schools, with a strong emphasis on early detection and 

prevention of reading problems. After one school year, SFA had a positive effect on 

students' ability to sound out words which was roughly equal to increasing the average 

student skills by seven percentage points. 

• Teach for America (TFA): TFA recruits college seniors and college graduates with 

strong academic records and provides brief, intense training to teach in low-income 

schools for a minimum of two years. After one school year, TFA was found to have a 

statistically significant positive effect on students’ math scores on State tests, roughly 

equivalent to an extra 2.6 months of learning during the school year. 

The next major category of grants is for Validation. All 35 Validation grantees from 

2010 through 2013 are on track to have evaluations that meet the What Works Clearinghouse 

standards without or with reservations. Examples of results among Validation grantees include 

the following:

• North Carolina New Schools (NCNS), a nonprofit organization focused on high school 

redesign, leveraged a 2011 i3 Validation award to help more than 1,000 rural, lowincome students to enroll in college courses while still in high school. Based on 

research on the effects of the State’s early college high schools, NCNS also won a 

Scale-up grant in 2014 to expand this proven early college high school model in North 

Carolina and four other States. The NCNS Scale-up project will support collaboration 

between States and other organizations to leverage this success and help more local 

communities improve graduation rates and college attainment for more students.

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

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

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

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

chronically low-performing schools outperform the State average in 2012 by 

G-25
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Investing in innovation

13.7 percentage points in English Language Arts and 9.4 percentage points in 

mathematics. 

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

Readiness Program, has helped enroll more than 6,300 students in college-level 

Advanced Placement (AP) courses in Colorado and Indiana. In the schools participating 

in the first cohort, the number of AP passing scores on math, science and English exams 

increased considerably in the first year. In Colorado, 871 students earned a passing 

score in the 2013 AP math, science and English exams—a 39 percent increase of the 

625 exams passed in 2012. In Indiana schools, 675 students earned a passing score in

these exams in 2012, and 1,123 did so in 2013—a 66 percent increase. Overall, 

participating students in Colorado and Indiana passed nearly 2,000 AP math, science 

and English exams in 2013.

Lastly, 76 of 77 i3 Development grants awarded from 2010 through 2013 will produce emerging 

evidence for improving student outcomes. A majority of these Development grantees are on 

track to meet the WWC standards without or with reservations; the remainder will include at 

least a correlational study. Examples of innovative approaches supported by i3 Development 

grants include: 

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

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

opportunities in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields to 

disadvantaged students. The Carroll County partnership pairs rigorous STEM 

coursework and student supports with paid apprenticeships at the Southwire 

manufacturing plant. Although the program targets students at the highest risk of 

dropping out, and all participating students are economically disadvantaged, the 

graduation rate is over 10 percentage points higher for participating students 

(77.8 percent) than the district rate (67.5 percent). With support from the i3 Development 

grant, Carroll County Schools will expand the program’s reach in two neighboring 

counties, doubling the number of students served, while also participating in an 

evaluation that will highlight lessons learned for school districts and private sector 

leaders that want to replicate the Carroll County model. 

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

2010 i3 Development grant, in part, to develop more rigorous learning opportunities for 

high school students. The St. Vrain School District has built a partnership with the 

University of Colorado, IBM, and other private sector leaders to create a new STEM 

academy at Skyline High School and offer a STEM-focused high school certificate. 

Between the 2010 and 2012 school years, St. Vrain’s graduation rate rose by 10 

percentage points overall (from 78.8 percent to 88.4 percent), and by over 20 

percentage points for Hispanic students (from 60.7 percent to 81.5 percent). 

• In 2014, the Mission HydroScience team at the University of Missouri received an 

i3 Development grant to create a three-dimensional virtual learning game to support 

science teaching and learning in small and rural schools. The team will design and 

create a game that adapts to student learning, assesses student progress, and rewards 

G-26
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Investing in innovation

students as their scores rise. As the team develops the game, it will simultaneously 

create supports for teachers, including a community of practice, that will ensure the 

learning game is well implemented and provides teachers with key data to inform 

instruction. 

The 2016 budget request includes a proposal to allow Federal, State or local public funds to be 

used as matching funds, rather than limiting matching funds to private sources. This would 

create an incentive to leverage existing public education funding, including Federal formula 

funding, in support of evidence-based practices. Allowing for such leveraging would have a 

two-fold effect: first, better supporting sustainability of successful interventions, since private 

funds are more likely to be time-limited; and second, promoting better uses of other public funds 

to support activities that are evidence-based and more likely to improve student outcomes. 

For fiscal year 2016, the Department looks forward to a dialogue with Congress about the 

appropriate priorities for an i3 funded at the requested level. The Department would reserve up 

to $17.5 million for national activities, including providing technical assistance to help grantees 

develop and implement rigorous evaluation plans. Among other things, this technical 

assistance has proven critical to ensuring that grantees are able to conduct evaluations that 

meet What Works Clearinghouse standards. 

In addition, the Department would reserve up to $50 million for ARPA-ED. ARPA-ED would be 

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

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

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

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

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

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

expended.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Amount for grants $135,717 $112,800 $279,000

Number of new awards 26 12–20 50–70

Number of grant extensions 

for evaluation activities

9 0 0

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

Peer review of new award 

applications

$907 $1,200 $3,500

National activities $4,978 $6,000 $17,500

G-27
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Investing in innovation

Measures 2014 2015 2016

ARPA-ED 0 0 $50,000

_______________

NOTE: The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The fiscal year 2015 

appropriations act provided the same authority and the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget would continue this 

authority. The request for the Investing in Innovation program assumes that this program would be included in the 

ESEA reauthorization. The Department may reserve funds from this program under the pooled evaluation authority 

in fiscal year 2016.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

objectives, measures, and performance targets and data consistent with the requirements of the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); as well as 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, funds requested in FY 2016 and 

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

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

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

achievement and other student outcomes.

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

across the country to serve a substantially larger numbers of students.

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

Year Target Actual

2011 67%

2012 70% 60

2013 75 60

2014 80

2015 60

2016 66

G-28
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Investing in innovation

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

Year Target Actual

2011 46%

2012 50% 70

2013 54 58

2014 60

2015 65

2016 68

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

submitted through December 31, 2013. Actual percentages are based on partial data; one 

grantee did not provide targets for the number of students that would be served. The 

Department reset some targets in 2013 based on the additional data that was available after 

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

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

improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data. Data for fiscal year 2014 will 

be available in summer of 2015.

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

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

address persistent educational challenges.

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

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

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

Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2011 100%

2012 80% 100

2013 80 100

2014 80

2015 80

2016 83

G-29
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Investing in innovation

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

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

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

Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2011 100%

2012 90% 89

2013 92 89

2014 94

2015 75

2016 78

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

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

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2011 97%

2012 94% 100

2013 95 100

2014 96

2015 96

2016 96

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

The Department reset some targets in 2013 based on the additional data available after 2 years 

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

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

improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data. Data for fiscal year 2014 will 

be available in summer of 2015. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G-30
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Investing in innovation

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

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

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

projects meeting the measure. 

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

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

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

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

outcomes between groups.

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

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

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

Year Target Actual

2011 100%

2012 80% 100

2013 80 100

2014 80

2015 80

2016 83

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

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

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

Year Target Actual

2011 93%

2012 90% 100

2013 90 100

2014 90

2015 90

2016 93

G-31
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Investing in innovation

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

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

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

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2011 90%

2012 90% 97

2013 90 97

2014 90

2015 90

2016 95

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

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

standards for this measure in order to make them clearer and more objective. The Department 

will continue providing targeted technical assistance to grantees in order to improve the quality, 

completeness, and consistency of the data. Data for fiscal year 2014 will be available in 

summer of 2015. 

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

develop logic models and fidelity measures of program implementation, it is unlikely that initial 

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

changes could affect the quality of program implementation data. The Department is providing 

technical assistance to grantees and their evaluators on this issue. 

The Department is not reporting data separately on the percentage of Development grantees 

that are implementing their projects with fidelity to the approved design. However, the 

evaluation contractor, in determining which Development projects to count as meeting the 

elements of the last measure above, examines whether Development projects’ evaluation plans 

include a strategy for measuring implementation fidelity.

Efficiency Measures

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

Data for this measure for 2011 are based on aggregate total project costs (including evaluation 

costs) and the number of students served by all grantees. Aggregate program costs were used 

to calculate costs per student due to inconsistencies in the data grantees reported. The 

Department has developed a reporting format and provided technical assistance to grantees in 

order to improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data. Data for this measure 

for 2012 and subsequent years is based on total project costs minus evaluation costs and the 

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

evaluation costs for i3 projects tend to be large due to the complexity of the evaluation designs 

and the goal of meeting WWC standards. Data for 2012 are partial because not all grantees 

provided a breakdown of costs for evaluation versus other expenses. Data for 2013 represent 

G-32
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Investing in innovation

all 5 Scale-up grants, 27 out of 28 Validation grants, and 55 of 59 Development grants. Data for 

fiscal year 2014 will be available in summer of 2015. 

Year Cost per student, 

Scale-up grants

Cost per student, 

Validation grants

Cost per student, 

Development grants

2011 $53 $177 $140

2012 61 159 182

2013 237 181 140

2014

2015

2016

Additional information: In 2013, Scale-up grantees missed their targets for serving students 

by 15 percent, which resulted in a significant increase in the cost per student in that year. The 

Department continues to provide technical assistance to grantees on program implementation 

as well as improving the reliability of their data.

G-33
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Excellent educators grants (currently teacher incentive fund)

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2015 2016 Change

$230,000 $350,000 +$120,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Excellent Educators Grants proposal for 2016 would strengthen the Teacher Incentive 

Fund (TIF), which supports State and school district efforts to implement effective personnel 

strategies that are designed to increase teacher and principal quality and in turn raise student 

academic outcomes, and close achievement gaps in some of our highest need schools.

Under TIF, the Department makes competitive grants to support the development and 

implementation of performance-based compensation systems that not only are well-designed, 

but also are part of a broader plan to evaluate teachers and principals fairly and rigorously, 

improve career advancement and support decisions, and enhance instruction. TIF projects also 

provide effective educators with incentives to take on additional responsibilities and leadership 

roles. Eligible entities include (1) LEAs, including charter schools that are LEAs; (2) States; and 

(3) nonprofit organizations in partnership with an LEA, a State, or both. 

TIF applicants must propose educator evaluation and support systems that consider student 

achievement as well as other factors, including multiple classroom observations, that provide 

educators with timely feedback and targeted professional development. Applicants must 

develop these systems with the input of teachers and school leaders and demonstrate a 

commitment to ensuring the fiscal and programmatic sustainability of their projects upon 

completion of their TIF grant.

Under TIF, the Department has emphasized support for projects that propose innovative ways 

to improve instruction for high-need students, such as English Learners and students with 

disabilities, and student achievement in high-need fields and subjects, such as science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The most recent competition for new grant 

awards, held in 2012, also specifically supported projects that would build career ladders that 

include school-based instructional leadership positions (such as master teachers, mentor 

teachers, or instructional coach roles).

G-34
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Excellent educators grants

The Department may also use up to 5 percent of TIF funds for technical assistance, training, 

peer review of applications, program outreach, and evaluation activities.

Funding is appropriated for TIF under the Fund for the Improvement of Education, authorized by 

Title V, Part D, Subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but key program 

requirements are established through annual appropriations language.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2011 ..................................................................... $399,200

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $350.0 million for the Excellent Educators Grants program, 

$120.0 million more than the 2015 level for the existing TIF program. The enhanced program 

would make competitive awards to States and LEAs to create effective human capital systems, 

including but not limited to changes in compensation. Effective human capital systems are 

rooted in educator evaluation systems that differentiate performance based on multiple 

measures, including student growth, and that align evidence-based activities for preparing, 

supporting, retaining, paying, and advancing effective teachers and school leaders. The revised 

program would reach more districts by prioritizing support for States that work in partnership 

with districts. Financial sustainability after the end of the grant would also be a key priority.

As a Nation, we must find ways to support teachers and principals so they—and their 

students—can succeed, and retain effective educators and expand their reach through new 

leadership roles, including leading instructional improvements that will benefit all teachers and 

students. States and school districts have been developing teacher and principal evaluation 

and support systems to improve hiring practices, provide educators meaningful feedback and 

targeted professional development, and link personnel decisions to performance, but there is 

much more work to do so that more effective teachers and principals serve and stay in highneed schools. About 13 percent of teachers change schools or leave the profession every year, 

costing States up to $2 billion annually, and between 40 and 50 percent of teachers leave the 

profession within 5 years.1

 These losses disproportionately affect high-poverty urban and rural 

schools, where students are more likely to be taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-offield teachers, and high-need students such as English Learners and students with disabilities. 

Teachers report leaving for a variety of reasons, including inadequate administrative support, 

isolated working conditions, and limited opportunities to participate in school leadership. 

1 Mariana Haynes, “On the Path to Equity: Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers,” 

Alliance for Excellent Education (2014); Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics, “Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results from the 2008-09 Teacher Follow-up Survey” (2010).

G-35

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Excellent educators grants

States and LEAs are implementing reforms to elevate the overall quality of instruction to 

improve student achievement. The Administration’s request includes a set of initiatives to help 

States, LEAs, institutions of higher education, and other partners to address each phase of a 

teacher and school leader’s career, including new innovations in how we recognize and support 

teachers and leaders. The request for Improving Teacher Quality State Grants would provide 

formula grants for ongoing State and local efforts to strengthen the recruitment, preparation, 

evaluation, support, and retention of teachers and school leaders to elevate the overall quality of 

instruction and improve student achievement. In addition, under an expanded Supporting 

Effective Educator Development (SEED) program, the Department would make new competitive 

grants to national nonprofit organizations to support teacher and school leader enhancement 

projects with evidence of effectiveness and conduct related national leadership activities. The 

Administration’s Teaching for Tomorrow proposal would fund competitive grants to assist States 

in dramatically improving teacher recruitment, selection, and early career supports, and support 

States and districts in increasing the retention of excellent teachers and implementing 

innovative, evidence-based models for induction, mentoring, evaluation, and support to improve 

teacher performance and increase access to effective teachers for all students. 

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

essential for implementing the teacher equity plans that States are developing under the 

Administration’s Excellent Educators for All initiative. Under this initiative, and consistent with 

section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), each 

State must develop a comprehensive plan to ensure that “poor and minority children are not 

taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.” 

A key element of these plans in many States will be improving their systems for recruiting, 

training, and placing new teachers and school leaders and compensating and retaining effective 

educators in high-poverty, high-minority schools.

Building on the Teacher Incentive Fund, the Excellent Educators initiative recognizes that the 

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

sharp focus on improving outcomes for students and educators, ambitious scope, and 

demonstrated capacity to sustain the work, like District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS)’s 

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

system, targeted professional support, and rapidly accelerated pay and career advancement for 

strong performers have strengthened retention of high-quality educators and helped lead to 

significant gains in student academic outcomes and decreased achievement gaps.2

 

Hillsborough County Public Schools, another TIF grantee, has also successfully implemented 

an educator evaluation system with performance-based compensation and career advancement 

(Performance Outcomes with Effective Rewards, or POWER) designed to increase the number 

of highly effective teachers recruited to and retained in project schools and strengthen teacher 

leadership in the district.

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

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

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

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

G-36

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Excellent educators grants

Excellent Educators Grants would support States or LEAs with bold plans for improving student 

outcomes through the use of comprehensive human capital systems. The foundation of any 

application would be a high-quality evaluation and support system for educators that includes 

multiple measures, including student growth. States applying for Excellent Educators Grants 

would conduct an assessment of needs at the State level as well as in their LEAs with the 

largest gaps in access to effective teachers and principals. Plans would be required to address 

one or more of the following issues, with a priority for more comprehensive efforts: 

• Strengthening certification, licensure, or tenure systems to ensure that teachers are able 

to meet students’ needs, particularly in high-need districts and schools;

• Changing compensation and advancement systems to achieve significantly higher pay 

for highly effective teachers, particularly in high-need schools, fields, and subjects; and

• Providing incentives and supports to increase the number of highly effective teachers 

and principals who are placed and remain in high-need districts and schools.

Regardless of which paths they choose, all applicants would be required to improve the quality 

of professional development and support for teachers, including but not limited to improvements 

in induction, mentoring, coaching, and common planning time. States could also use resources 

to lift standards for entry into teacher preparation programs or focus on creating supportive 

environments for teachers. 

The Department would give priority to State applicants that propose to leverage changes across 

multiple districts and that commit to changing important aspects of State policy, such as 

strengthening standards for admission to teacher preparation programs, certification, or tenure. 

The Department would also focus on supporting applicants that propose to leverage funds 

provided under Improving Teacher Quality State Grants and that have a clear plan to sustain

the systems and activities supported by Excellent Educators Grants.

The Department would use up to 5 percent of the appropriation for technical assistance, 

training, peer review of applications, program outreach, and evaluation activities.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Amount for new awards 0 0 $177,500

Number of new awards 0 0 10

Average new award 0 0 $17,750

Amount for continuation awards $281,273 $218,500 $155,000

Number of continuation awards 92 35 35

Average continuation award $3,057 $6,243 $4,429

G-37
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Excellent educators grants

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Technical assistance, training, 

outreach, and evaluation $7,498 $11,500 $17,500 _______________

NOTE: The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The fiscal year 2015 

appropriations act provided the same authority and the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget would continue this 

authority. While the Department did not reserve funds from this program under this authority in fiscal year 2014, it 

may do so in fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. The Department has established the following goal and performance measures to 

assess the impact of the Teacher Incentive Fund.

Goal: Improve student achievement by increasing teacher and principal effectiveness by 

reforming teacher and principal compensation systems so that teachers and principals 

are rewarded for increases in student achievement. 

Objective: Show an increase in the percentage of teachers and principals in high-need schools 

who have a record of effectiveness. 

Measure: The percentage of teachers and principals in high-need schools who have a record 

of effectiveness.

Year 2006 Cohort

Actual

2007 Cohort

Actual

2010 Cohort

Actual

2011 29.3% 46.3% 70.8%

2012 44.3 79.9

2013

2014

2015

2016

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

reports. Only 14 of the 60 grantees in the 2010 Cohort reported results for this measure 

for 2011; for the remaining grantees in the 2010 Cohort, 2011 was a planning year. A number 

of grantees in each cohort reported very high percentages of “effective” teachers and principals 

based on the percentage of educators who received incentive payments. In those cases, 

G-38
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Excellent educators grants

grantees made incentive payments to a substantial number of teachers and principals in highneed schools, but the amounts of those payments might have varied by individual. The 

Department has addressed this reporting issue by establishing new measures for the 

2012 Cohort, as described below.

Objective: Show an increase in the percentage of a district’s personnel budget that is used for 

performance-related payments to effective (as measured by student achievement gains) 

teachers and principals. 

Measure: The percentage of a district’s personnel budget that is used for performance-related 

payments to effective teachers and principals (as measured by student achievement gains).

Year 2006 Cohort

Actual

2007 Cohort

Actual

2010 Cohort

Actual

2011 1.2% 0.9% 0.7%

2012 0.9 1.0

2013

2014

2015

2016

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

reports.

New Measures

The Department established four new measures as part of the 2012 grant competition: (1) the 

percentage of teachers and principals who are rated at each effectiveness level, as measured 

by the grantee’s evaluation system; (2) the percentage of teachers teaching in a high-need field 

or subject, such as teaching English Learners, students with disabilities, or STEM, who are 

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

at each effectiveness level in the previous year and who returned to serve in the same highneed school in the LEA; and (4) the percentage of school districts participating in a TIF grant 

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

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

improved student outcomes. 

Preliminary results for 2013 show that in participating districts, 27 percent of teachers 

(23,591 out of 87,555) and 31 percent of principals (926 out of 3,031) received the highest 

effectiveness rating under their district’s evaluation system. Most of these highly effective 

educators (56 percent of the teachers and 62 percent of the principals) were serving in highneed schools.

A similar proportion (25 percent) of teachers of high-need fields or subjects were rated at the 

highest level of effectiveness. Around 48 percent of these teachers were serving in high-need 

schools.

G-39
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Excellent educators grants

Approximately 71 percent of TIF districts reported using their educator evaluation system to 

inform professional development. Around 65 percent of TIF districts reported considering 

evaluations for career advancement decisions, and slightly more than half (50 to 60 percent) of 

participating districts reported using the systems to inform recruitment, hiring, placement, and 

retention. A minority of districts also reported using these systems to inform tenure decisions 

(25 percent) and dismissal decisions (40 percent).

Other Performance Information

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

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

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

implementation information prior to the actual distribution of annual performance information 

and bonuses to educators.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

program, including the size of pay-for-performance bonuses they could earn.

IES is also conducting a study to assess the impact of teacher and leader performance 

evaluation and support systems.4

 This study will address the effect of these systems on 

educator practices, supports provided to educators, and student academic achievement. It will 

also describe districts’ and educators’ experiences implementing these systems.

In 2012, the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) published an 

implementation study of the 2006 and 2007 TIF cohorts.5

 The study found, among other things, 

that most of the 34 grantees recognized the importance of providing teachers opportunities to 

learn how to improve their practices so they could improve their instruction and earn an award. 

However, the report noted that in the majority of projects, almost all teachers and administrators 

were eligible for performance-based bonuses and received awards and that many of the 

performance-pay projects faced significant challenges to financial sustainability.

In addition, PPSS’s “Results in Brief: Providing Effective Teachers for All Students: Examples 

from Five Districts,” also published in 2012, looked at five districts that use data on student 

achievement growth to identify effective teachers, implement performance pay initiatives or 

3 “Impact Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_incentive.asp. 4 “Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Performance Evaluation Systems,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_performance.asp. 5 “Teacher Incentive Fund: First Implementation Report: 2006 and 2007 Grantees,” 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#tq. 

G-40

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Excellent educators grants

other human resource policies, and seek to ensure an equitable distribution of effective 

teachers, particularly in high-need schools.6

 Three of the districts received TIF grants, and 

another benefited from TIF support through a State grantee. The report described how these 

districts measure teacher effectiveness and some of the challenges they faced, such as hurdles 

in implementing classroom observation systems that were both rigorous and manageable in 

terms of complexity and time required.

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

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#tq. 

G-41

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teach er and prin cip al pathways:

Teacher and principal pathways (currently school leadership, teacher quality partnership, 

and transition to teaching)

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

Period of Fund Availability 2015 2016 Change

Teacher Pathways 0 $100,000 +$100,000

Principal Pathways 0 38,762 +38,762

Total 0 138,762 +138,762

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The proposed Teacher and Principal Pathways program is designed to help institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) and nonprofit organizations, working closely with school districts, carry 

out the important work of teacher and principal preparation. Promoting a variety of high-quality 

pathways into teaching and school leadership is an essential mechanism for providing new 

teachers and principals the training they need to serve in high-need schools and for addressing 

inequities in access to effective and highly effective educators.

Teacher Pathways would fund competitive grants to teacher preparation programs operated by 

IHEs and nonprofit organizations, to support the creation or expansion of high-quality pathways 

into the teaching profession. These pathways would emphasize partnerships with local 

educational agencies (LEAs) and increasing the number of effective and highly effective 

teachers serving in high-need schools and teaching in high-need fields and subjects. The 

proposal would build on and replace current Department efforts to improve teacher preparation 

through the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Transition to Teaching (TTT) programs.

Principal Pathways would fund competitive grants to principal preparation programs operated by 

IHEs and nonprofit organizations, preferably in partnership with LEAs, to support the creation or 

expansion of high-quality pathways that prepare participants to serve effectively as principals in 

high-need schools. The proposed Principal Pathways program would build on and replace 

current Department efforts under the School Leadership program.

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $138.8 million for the Teacher and Principal Pathways in fiscal 

year 2016: $100.0 million for the Teacher Pathways program and $38.8 million for the Principal 

G-42
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and Principal Pathways

Pathways program, an overall increase of $68.1 million above the aggregate of the 2015 levels 

for the School Leadership, TQP, and TTT programs.

Great teachers and principals matter enormously to the learning and the lives of children. Every 

parent knows it, and study after study proves it. However, teachers, principals, and researchers 

have made it clear that too many teacher and principal preparation programs today are not 

equipping educators with the skills they need to be successful. 

The Teacher Pathways program would support evidence-based investments in the recruitment, 

competitive selection, preparation, and placement of new teachers to meet the specific needs of 

LEAs with a high share of high-need schools. The Department would give priority to applicants 

that propose to expand teacher preparation programs with a track record of placing teachers in 

high-need schools and subjects and whose teachers have high early career retention rates and 

a positive impact on student learning. The Department also would support applicants that 

propose to replicate preparation models with evidence of effectiveness or that propose a 

promising new structure with a rigorous evaluation plan. In addition, applicants would need to 

demonstrate formal partnerships with LEAs or strong historical demand for a program’s 

graduates from LEA hiring authorities.

The new program would also promote rigorous recruitment practices coupled with a competitive 

selection process, based on research indicating that these program components are an 

effective strategy for identifying teacher candidates who are likely to have a positive impact on 

their students. For example, grantees could raise admission standards to ensure that 

participants were in the top third of the distribution of all aspiring applicants, accounting for 

academic measures (such as GPA) or non-academic measures (such as leadership skills). 

Grantees could also find ways to incorporate significant practical experience in the classroom. 

Other key goals of the new program include preparing teachers to teach to college- and careerready (CCR) standards and to meet the needs of high-need schools and areas (including rural 

areas), hard-to-staff fields and subjects (such as science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics, or STEM), or high-need students (such as English Learners and students with 

disabilities). Grantees would be required to maintain specialized accreditation or to 

demonstrate that their graduates have content and pedagogical knowledge and high-quality 

clinical preparation, and have met rigorous exit requirements. Programs preparing teachers 

under both “traditional” and “alternative” routes to State certification or licensure would be 

eligible for funding. The Department may give priority to applicants focused on improving the 

preparation of STEM teachers, consistent with the proposed program's emphasis on preparing 

more teachers for high-need fields and subjects and the President’s goal of developing 

100,000 new effective and highly effective STEM teachers while also building evidence on the 

characteristics and requirements of high-quality STEM teacher preparation programs.

Teaching is one of the most important and challenging careers. Increasingly, research indicates 

that of all the school-related factors that impact student academic performance, great teachers 

matter most.1 Yet new research shows that many teacher preparation programs offer easy A’s 

1 RAND Corp., “Teachers matter: Understanding teachers' impact on student achievement” 

(2012).

G-43

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and Principal Pathways

instead of rigorous training.2 Far too many teachers report they are unprepared when they first 

enter the classroom after completing their teacher preparation program. And new teachers will 

continue to face challenges as their schools transition to rigorous college- and career-ready 

academic standards. These challenges are exacerbated by an imbalance of supply and 

demand; far too many candidates are certified in fields with limited job availability, such as 

elementary education, while there are shortages of teachers in high-need fields and subjects.

The impact of these current weaknesses in teacher preparation on students is extraordinary. It 

is no surprise that a comparison of top-performing teacher preparation programs to the lowestperforming programs in one study found that the impact on student learning gains in 

mathematics from teacher preparation can be greater than the impact of poverty.

3

 This is a 

critical finding for Federal education programs, which focus on improving educational 

opportunities and outcomes for children from low-income families attending high-need schools.

To help address these challenges, the Department has proposed regulations designed to 

strengthen teacher preparation programs. These proposed regulations call for States to 

measure the performance of teacher preparation programs, ensure that their graduates are 

prepared to work in our most challenging schools, identify and reward the top performing 

programs, and facilitate continuous improvement. In addition, States and communities are 

developing promising, innovative approaches to preparation focused on equipping teachers with 

strong content knowledge coupled with robust practical experience. For example, the American 

Museum of Natural History in New York City, in partnership with New York State, middle and 

high schools, and the Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation at the 

University of Southern Maine, received a Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) grant to refine, 

expand, and institutionalize its pilot residency program that grants Master of Arts in Teaching 

degrees with a Specialization in Earth Science for grades 7–12. The project integrates theory 

with practice and is specifically focused on high-need, urban schools with diverse student 

populations, including English Learners and students with special needs. Finally, the 

Department has begun to implement a new initiative focused on increasing access to great 

teachers and principals. The new Teacher Pathways program would provide States and 

districts with tools to address the significant need for better, more responsive teacher 

preparation.

The proposed Principal Pathways program would support the recruitment, competitive selection, 

preparation, and placement of new principals, especially those who are able to lead the 

improvement of high-need schools that are chronically low-performing. The proposed program 

would also include funding for evaluation to build evidence of effectiveness. 

Principal Pathways applicants would need to either show that they have partnered with LEAs or 

demonstrate strong historical demand for program graduates from LEA hiring authorities. 

Successful applicants would commit to using evidence-based approaches to training effective 

new principals, especially those who are prepared to take over high-need schools, or to 

2 National Council on Teacher Quality, “Training Our Teachers: Easy A’s and What’s Behind Them” 

(2014). 3 Goldhaber, Dan, et al., “The Gateway to the Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs 

Based on Student Achievement,” Economics of Education Review (2013).

G-44

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and Principal Pathways

conducting rigorous evaluations of innovative strategies to help build the evidence base in this 

area.

Similar to the Teacher Pathways program, the Principal Pathways proposal would promote 

rigorous recruitment and competitive selection of principal candidates, including innovative ways 

to recruit candidates with experience as an effective or highly effective teacher, and to identify 

those with the strongest potential to be effective school leaders in high-need schools. Projects

would provide instruction, practice, and feedback aimed at helping aspiring principals to master 

essential school leadership skills, such as evaluating and providing feedback to teachers, 

analyzing student data, developing school leadership teams, strengthening the capacity of 

building-level staff through distributive leadership models, and creating a supportive school 

environment and a culture of high expectations. The request would also support projects that 

deepen aspiring principals’ understanding of CCR standards and effective instruction aligned to 

those standards. 

Grantees would involve principal managers, such as by providing coaching or support for district 

superintendents, based on research showing that district-level staff can play an important role in 

helping develop and retain strong principals.4

Effective principals are also crucial to strengthening teaching and school communities. Second 

only to classroom instruction, school leadership is the most important school-based variable 

affecting student achievement.

5 Emerging research shows that effective leaders play a critical 

role in students’ academic success, especially in high-need schools, by creating cultures of high 

expectations and by recruiting and retaining highly effective teachers.6 A school leader directly 

impacts the quality of instruction through hiring decisions of instructional staff and decisions 

about professional development activities.

7 Effective principals also provide instructional 

leadership in addition to carrying out administrative responsibilities.8 Teachers cite a principal’s 

support and effectiveness as a leading factor that contributes to their decisions to remain in the 

profession.9 Highly effective school leaders make teachers feel valued and allow them to focus 

solely on student learning, inducing them to stay in the classroom.10 Effective leaders also 

create a vision of academic success for all children in their schools and encourage other 

educators to take on leadership roles and responsibilities.

4 Béteille, Tara, et al., “Stepping Stones: Principal Career Paths and School Outcomes,” CALDER 

Working Paper No. 58 (2011); Mitgang, Lee, “Districts Matter: Cultivating the Principals Urban Schools 

Need,” Wallace Foundation (2013). 5 Leithwood, Kenneth, et al., “How Leadership Influences Student Learning” (2004). 6 Loeb, Susanna, et al., “Effective Schools: Teacher Hiring, Assignment, Development, and 

Retention,” Journal of Education Finance and Policy (2012). 7 Papa, Frank, et al., “Hiring Teachers in New York’s Public Schools: Can the Principal Make a 

Difference?” (2003). 8 Wallace Foundation, “The School Principal as Leader: Guiding Schools to Better Teaching and 

Learning” (2013). 9 Futernick, Ken, “A Possible Dream: Retaining California Teachers So All Students Can Learn,” 

California State University (2007). 10 Ikemoto, Gina, et al., New Leaders, “Playmakers: How great principals build and lead great teams 

of teachers” (2012).

G-45

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and Principal Pathways

The Department has also begun to help build evidence around what successful principal 

preparation looks like. For example, the 2013 School Leadership program competition 

encouraged applicants to address the challenges of preparing and supporting principals through 

projects that would help expand the evidence base for high-quality principal preparation, 

professional development for principals, or both. In addition, the Department launched the 

Turnaround School Leaders Program (TSLP) in fiscal year 2014 using national activities funds 

under the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program. The TSLP provides grants to LEAs to 

help ensure that leaders of schools eligible for or receiving SIG funds possess the specialized 

skills needed to drive successful efforts to turn those schools around. 

Greater investment is needed specifically for stronger recruitment, selection, and preparation of 

leaders for the critical role of principal, especially for high-need schools. In particular, highpoverty and high-minority schools are more likely to be led by principals who are weaker on 

various quality measures (including leadership ratings from staff and years of experience) than 

those in lower poverty schools.

11 Strong principals are essential to the improvement of lowperforming schools and are vital for schools to retain their strongest teachers.12 Further, many 

candidates who enter existing leadership training programs never use their credentials to 

become a principal or obtain other administrative positions.

The Department would reserve up to 5 percent of the request for national leadership activities, 

including technical assistance to grantees. A portion of the national leadership activities setaside would also be used to create survey tools that States could use to gather feedback about 

teacher preparation programs from graduates and their employers; results would help inform the 

development of more meaningful teacher preparation accountability systems. The Department 

would reserve an additional 0.5 percent for evaluation.

The Teacher Pathways and Principal Pathways programs would replace the current School 

Leadership, TQP, and TTT programs. This proposed consolidation is consistent with a 

longstanding principle of the Administration’s policy to consolidate small, narrowly targeted, 

categorical programs into broader, more flexible authorities that better meet local needs. 

Continuation costs for these programs in fiscal year 2016 would be funded from the 

appropriation for the Teacher and Leader Pathways programs.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2016

Teacher Pathways

TP Funding for new awards $68,274

11 Clotfelter, Charles, et al., “High-Poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers and Principals,” 

National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) Working Paper No. 1 

(2007); Horng, Eileen, et al., “Principal Preferences and the Unequal Distribution of Principals Across 

Schools,” CALDER Working Paper No. 36 (2009). 12 Schleicher, Andreas (Ed.), “Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st 

Century: Lessons from around the World,” OECD (2012).

G-46

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and Principal Pathways

Measures 2016

TP Number of new awards 20

TP Average new award $3,414

TP Peer review of new award 

applications

$200

TP National leadership activities $5,000

TP Evaluation $500

TP Continuation costs for Teacher 

Quality Partnership

$26,026

Principal Pathways

TL Funding for new awards $20,680

TL Number of new awards 10

TL Average new award $2,068

TL Peer review of new award 

applications

$150

TL National leadership activities $1,938

TL Evaluation $194

TL Continuation costs for School 

Leadership

$15,800

_______________

NOTE: The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The fiscal year 2015 

appropriations act provided the same authority and the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget would continue this 

authority. The Teacher Principal Pathways program would be authorized by the ESEA; the Department may reserve 

funds from this program under the pooled evaluation authority in fiscal year 2016.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

Teacher and Leader Pathways programs. Grantees would report on the placement, retention, 

and effectiveness of program participants and on the results of new teacher and employer 

surveys consistent with the Department’s proposed regulations to strengthen teacher 

preparation. Grantees would also report on efficiency measures about program costs.

G-47
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Transition to teaching

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part C, Subpart 1, Chapter B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2015 2016 Change

$13,700 0 -$13,700

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2016 

under new legislation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Transition to Teaching program helps high-need schools and local educational agencies 

(LEAs) recruit and employ qualified licensed or certified teachers by encouraging the 

development and expansion of alternative routes to certification. The program provides 3- to 

5-year grants to recruit, train, certify, and place talented individuals into teaching positions and 

to support them during their first years in the classroom. In particular, the program focuses on 

encouraging two groups of nontraditional teaching candidates to become classroom teachers: 

(1) mid-career professionals with substantial career experience, including highly qualified 

paraprofessionals, and (2) recent college graduates.

Under the program, the Department makes competitive grants to State educational agencies 

(SEAs), high-need LEAs, for-profit or nonprofit organizations (in partnership with SEAs or highneed LEAs) that have a proven record of effectively recruiting and retaining highly qualified 

teachers, institutions of higher education (IHEs) (in partnership with SEAs or high-need LEAs), 

regional consortia of SEAs, or consortia of high-need LEAs. Grantees must develop and 

implement comprehensive approaches to training, placing, and supporting teacher candidates 

they have recruited, including ensuring that candidates meet relevant State certification or 

licensing requirements.

Grantees are expected to ensure that program participants are placed in high-need schools in 

high-need LEAs and must give priority to schools that are located in areas with the highest 

percentages of students from families with incomes below the poverty line. A “high-need 

school” is defined as a school in which at least 30 percent of the students are from low-income 

families or that is located in an area with a high percentage of out-of-field teachers, is within the 

top 25 percent of schools statewide with unfilled teacher positions, is located in an area with a 

high teacher turnover rate, or is located in an area with a high percentage of teachers who are 

not licensed or certified. A “high-need LEA” is defined as an LEA for which at least 20 percent 

or 10,000 of the children served are from families with incomes below the poverty line and that 

has a high percentage of teachers teaching out-of-field or with emergency credentials.

G-48
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Transition to teaching

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2011.......................................................................$41,125

2012.........................................................................26,054

2013.........................................................................24,691

2014.........................................................................13,762

2015.........................................................................13,700

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget request includes no funding for Transition to 

Teaching, which would be consolidated into the Teacher and Principal Pathways authority 

proposed elsewhere in this account. This proposed consolidation is consistent with a 

longstanding principle of the Administration’s budget and legislative policy, which is to 

consolidate small, narrowly targeted, categorical programs into broader, more flexible 

authorities that better meet locally determined needs Promoting a variety of high-quality 

pathways is an essential mechanism for preparing new teachers and principals to serve highneed schools and addressing inequities in access to effective and highly effective educators. 

The new Teacher Pathways program would fund competitive grants to teacher preparation 

programs operated by IHEs and nonprofit organizations to support the creation or expansion of 

high-quality pathways into the teaching profession, including alternative routes to certification. 

These pathways would emphasize partnerships with LEAs and increasing the number of 

effective and highly effective teachers serving in high-need schools and teaching in high-need 

fields and subjects. 

The Administration’s budget request acknowledges that teachers and principals are working 

hard to implement rigorous new college- and career-ready standards and that States and LEAs 

are implementing reforms in order to elevate the overall quality of instruction to improve student 

achievement. The request includes a set of initiatives to help States, LEAs, IHEs, and other 

partners to address each phase of a teacher’s preparation and career in order to improve 

student achievement and ensure access to a high-quality education for all students, and, 

therefore, builds on the Transition to Teaching program’s record of support for teachers early in 

their careers. The request for Improving Teacher Quality State Grants would provide formula 

grants for ongoing State and local efforts to strengthen the recruitment, preparation, evaluation, 

support, and retention of teachers and school leaders. In addition, under an expanded 

Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) program, the Department would make new 

competitive grants to national nonprofit organizations to support teacher and school leader 

enhancement projects with evidence of effectiveness and conduct related national leadership 

activities. Building on lessons learned from the Teacher Incentive Fund, the Department would 

also make competitive Excellent Educators Grants to States and LEAs to support evidencebased initiatives to strengthen State and local systems for recruiting, developing, and retaining 

effective teachers and principals in high-need districts and schools. Finally, the Administration’s 

Teaching for Tomorrow proposal would fund competitive grants to assist States in dramatically 

improving teacher recruitment, selection, and early career supports, and support States and 

districts in increasing the retention of excellent teachers and implementing innovative, evidenceG-49
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Transition to teaching

based models for induction, mentoring, evaluation, and support to improve teacher performance 

and increase access to effective teachers for all students.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Funding for continuation awards $13,693 $13,632 0

Number of continuation awards 30 30 0

Average continuation award $456 $454 0

Evaluation $69 $681 0

Number of participants 2,696 2,100 0

_________________

1 The fiscal year 2015 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved under 

section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Some or all of the funds that 

may be reserved from the Transition to Teaching program under section 9601 may be used under the ESEA pooled 

evaluation authority in fiscal year 2015.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The Transition to Teaching authorization requires that each grantee submit an interim 

evaluation report at the end of the third year of the 5-year grant period and a final evaluation 

report at the end of the grant. This evaluation must describe the extent to which the grantee 

met program goals relating to teacher recruitment and retention.

The Department established the following goal and performance indicators to assess the impact 

of the Transition to Teaching program:

Goal: To increase the number of mid-career professionals, qualified paraprofessionals, 

and recent college graduates who become highly qualified teachers in high-need schools 

in high-need LEAs and teach for at least 3 years. 

Objective: Recruit, prepare, and retain highly qualified teachers in high-need schools in 

high-need LEAs. 

G-50
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Transition to teaching

Measure: The percentage of Transition to Teaching participants who become teachers of 

record in high-need schools in high-need LEAs.

Year 2006 Cohort 

Target

2006 Cohort 

Actual

2007 Cohort 

Target

2007 Cohort 

Actual

2011 85% 75% 83% 72%

2012 85 79

2013

2014

2015

2016

Year 2009 Cohort 

Target

2009 Cohort 

Actual

2011 Cohort 

Target

2011 Cohort 

Actual

2011 58% 70%

2012 59 81 55% 74%

2013 60 82 56 82

2014

2015

2016

Additional information: Because the Department does not expect participants to become 

“teachers of record” in the first year of the program, baseline data are not provided for the first 

year of each cohort. The Department set targets for each cohort of grantees based on the 

performance of previous cohorts.

Measure: The percentage of Transition to Teaching participants receiving certification or 

licensure within 3 years.

Year 2006 Cohort 

Target

2006 Cohort 

Actual

2007 Cohort 

Target

2007 Cohort 

Actual

2011 50% 54% 48% 44%

2012 50 77

2013

2014

2015

2016

G-51
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Transition to teaching

Year 2009 Cohort 

Target

2009 Cohort 

Actual

2011 Cohort 

Target

2011 Cohort 

Actual

2011 18% 30%

2012 19 79 25% 54%

2013 20 57 26 45

2014

2015

2016

Measure: The percentage of Transition to Teaching teachers of record who teach in high-need 

schools in high-need LEAs for 3 years.

Year 2006 Cohort 

Target

2006 Cohort 

Actual

2007 Cohort 

Target

2007 Cohort 

Actual

2011 43% 53% 30% 35%

2012 67 82

2013

2014

2015

2016

Year 2009 Cohort 

Target

2009 Cohort 

Actual

2011 Cohort 

Target

2011 Cohort 

Actual

2011

2012 45% 47% 45% 47%

2013 46 65 46 59

2014

2015

2016

Additional information: This measure is the number of teachers of record who are still 

teaching after 3 years divided by the total number who began teaching 3 years earlier. Since it 

usually takes at least a year for a participant to find a teaching position, the baseline year for 

each cohort is 4 years after the start of the grant. 

G-52
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Transition to teaching

Efficiency Measures

Measure: The cost per participant who teaches in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for 

3 years.

Year 2006 Cohort 

Target

2006 Cohort 

Actual

2007 Cohort 

Target

2007 Cohort 

Actual

2009 Cohort 

Target

2009 Cohort 

Actual

2011 $18,317 $19,657 $55,537 $41,394

2012 18,317 50,537 25,603 $22,988

2013

2014

2015

2016

Measure: The cost per participant receiving certification or licensure.

Year 2006 Cohort 

Target

2006 Cohort 

Actual

2007 Cohort 

Target

2007 Cohort 

Actual

2011 $18,505 $10,508 $32,392 $14,320

2012 18,505 32,392 15,684

2013 32,392 16,282

2014

2015

2016

Year 2009 Cohort 

Target

2009 Cohort 

Actual

2011 Cohort 

Target

2011 Cohort 

Actual

2011 $15,602 $17,003

2012 10,602 13,210 $15,240 $18,240

2013 9,362 10,209 13,220 15,320

2014

2015

2016

Additional information: The numerator for these measures is the cumulative amount of 

money expended for each cohort. The Department established targets based on performance 

by prior grantee cohorts. The results of these measures have fluctuated in part because the 

number of participants in each cohort increased and then fell over the course of individual grant 

projects. In 2012, for example, 3,241 participants in the 2007 cohort, 1,142 participants in the 

2009 cohort, and 595 participants in the 2011 cohort received certification or licensure. That 

year, 835 participants in the 2007 cohort and 327 participants in the 2009 cohort had taught in a 

high-need school in a high-need LEA for three years.

G-53
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Transition to teaching

Other Performance Information

Transition to Teaching grantees are required to conduct an interim evaluation at the end of their 

third year and a final evaluation at the end of their grant period, focused on teacher recruitment 

and retention.

In 2006, the Department released “Transition to Teaching Program Evaluation: An Interim 

Report on the fiscal year 2002 Grantees.” Using data collected from November 2004 to 

February 2006, the report examined the types of activities grantees implemented, the content 

and outcomes of the activities, and the characteristics and qualifications of participants in the 

program. The report noted that 74 percent of participants who entered the Transition to 

Teaching project in 2002 were reported still to be teaching in 2004. In addition, the report found 

that 20 percent of program participants stated that they would likely not be teaching if they had 

not been involved in a Transition to Teaching project. 

The final report on the 2002 grantee cohort was published in 2013. The report found that of the 

more than 25,000 individuals recruited to participate in the program, over 19,000 (76 percent) 

became teachers of record in a high-need school in a high-need LEA, and over 13,000 received 

State certification. The report noted that many grantees worked closely with school district 

personnel (through both formal and informal partnerships) to find and place participants, 

including in positions as special education teachers, bilingual teachers, and teachers in rural 

school districts. Grantees reported having the most success recruiting mid-career professionals 

who were interested in beginning a second career as a teacher; a number of grantees also 

reported working with the Department of Defense’s Troops-to-Teachers program to recruit 

military personnel. Three grantees also reported that over 500 of their participants earned State 

certification; these projects attributed their “tremendous success” to strategies such as using an 

online system to track individuals’ progress towards certification, hiring dedicated staff focused 

on helping participants earn certification, and providing intensive test preparation. Finally, the 

report highlighted grantees’ strategies for supporting and retaining participants once they were 

placed as teachers in high-need schools in high-need districts, including by mentoring, providing 

workshops and professional development, and establishing support teams. The report found 

that nearly 80 percent of the participants who began teaching in school year 2006–07 remained 

in a high-need school in a high-need LEA 3 years later. Grantees reported that participants who 

left teaching within 3 years did so because of cuts to teaching positions, unsatisfactory 

evaluations, low salaries, negative student teaching experiences, and dissatisfaction with school 

culture and leadership. Grantees also reported substantial difficulty in placing and retaining 

program participants in small, rural, and remote high-need LEAs due to geographic barriers, in 

addition to generally low teacher salaries and a limited number of positions in those districts.

The Department published an interim report on the fiscal year 2004 grantee cohort in 2009, 

describing the extent to which those grantees met goals related to teacher recruitment, 

certification, and retention as described in their application. The report found that when 

grantees worked closely with their partnering LEAs, they generally identified and selected 

candidates who better matched the needs of the schools in which they could be placed (than 

was the case when there was not a close working relationship). In addition, the report noted 

that projects prepared participants for teaching with courses on a variety of topics, most 

commonly classroom management and instructional strategies. About half of the grantees 

G-54
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Transition to teaching

reported offering courses online, and more planned to use this method and other distance 

learning strategies in the future to deliver information to participants. The number of certified 

teachers across projects varied greatly, due, in part, to differences in State certification 

requirements and the fact that many projects devoted significant resources to recruiting and 

preparing teachers in the first 3 years of implementation. Several grantees commented that 

providing specific test-taking assistance, such as courses tailored to the exam, test preparation 

workshops, and even staffing a “certification specialist,” helped teachers complete the 

certification process in a timely manner. Finally, the report also looked at the support grantees 

provided to new teachers, primarily in the form of mentoring and professional development 

workshops and seminars, to help them adjust to the challenges of the classroom. The data 

suggest that a relationship exists between this type of support and high retention rates. 

However, grantees provided little information about why those who were not retained had left 

their school or project prior to the 3-year benchmark.

The Department expects to release the final report on the 2004 grantee cohort, an interim report 

on the 2006 and 2007 grantee cohorts, and an interim report on the 2009 grantee cohort, in 

spring 2015.

G-55
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leadership

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part A, Subpart 5, 

Section 2151(b))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2015 2016 Change

$16,368 0 -$16,368

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2016 

under new legislation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The School Leadership program provides competitive grants to assist high-need local 

educational agencies (LEAs) in recruiting, training, and retaining principals and assistant 

principals. A high-need LEA is defined as one that: (1) serves at least 10,000 children from 

low-income families or serves a community in which at least 20 percent of the children are from 

low-income families, and (2) has a high percentage of teachers teaching either outside of their 

area of certification or with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification.

Entities eligible for grants include high-need LEAs, nonprofit organizations, and institutions of 

higher education (IHEs). Grantees may use their funds to recruit and retain individuals to serve 

as principals in high-need LEAs by: (1) providing financial incentives to aspiring new principals, 

(2) providing stipends to principals who mentor new principals, (3) carrying out professional 

development programs in instructional leadership and management, and (4) providing 

incentives that are appropriate for teachers or individuals from other fields who want to become 

principals and that are effective in retaining new principals.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were: 

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2011.......................................................................$29,162

2012.........................................................................29,107

2013.........................................................................27,584

2014.........................................................................25,763

2015.........................................................................16,368

G-56
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leadership

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget request includes no funding for the School 

Leadership program, which would be consolidated into the Teacher and Principals Pathways 

authority proposed elsewhere in this account. This proposed consolidation is consistent with a 

longstanding principle of the Administration’s budget and legislative policy, which is to 

consolidate small, narrowly targeted, categorical programs into broader, more flexible 

authorities that better meet locally determined needs. Promoting a variety of high-quality 

pathways is an essential mechanism for preparing new teachers and principals to serve highneed schools and addressing inequities in access to effective and highly effective educators. 

The new Principal Pathways program would support the recruitment, competitive selection, 

preparation, and placement of new principals, especially those who are able to lead the 

improvement of high-need schools that are chronically low-performing. The proposed program 

would also support evaluation to build evidence of effectiveness.

The Administration’s budget request acknowledges that teachers and principals are working 

hard to implement rigorous new college- and career-ready standards, and that States and LEAs 

are implementing reforms in order to elevate the overall quality of instruction to improve student 

achievement. The request includes a set of initiatives to help States, LEAs, IHEs, and other 

partners address each phase of a school leader’s preparation and career in order to improve 

student achievement and ensure access to a high-quality education for all students, and, 

therefore, builds on the School Leadership program’s record of support for principals early in 

their careers. The request for Improving Teacher Quality State Grants would provide formula 

grants for ongoing State and local efforts to strengthen the recruitment, preparation, evaluation, 

support, and retention of teachers and school leaders. In addition, under an expanded 

Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) program, the Department would make new 

competitive grants to national nonprofit organizations to support teacher and school leader 

enhancement projects with evidence of effectiveness and conduct related national leadership 

activities. Building on lessons learned from the Teacher Incentive Fund, the Department would 

also make competitive Excellent Educators Grants to States and LEAs to support evidencebased initiatives to strengthen State and local systems for recruiting, developing, and retaining 

effective teachers and principals in high-need districts and schools. Finally, the Administration’s 

Teaching for Tomorrow (TFT) proposal would fund competitive grants to assist States in 

dramatically improving teacher recruitment, selection, and early career supports, and support 

States and districts in increasing the retention of excellent teachers and implementing

innovative, evidence-based models for induction, mentoring, evaluation, and support to improve 

teacher performance and increase access to effective teachers for all students. The TFT 

program would also support improvements in the quality of school leadership through the use of 

comprehensive and aligned evaluation, support, compensation, and retention strategies, and 

increases in principal autonomy to hire and dismiss teachers.

Under the Administration’s request, School Leadership continuation grant costs in fiscal year 

2016 would be funded from the appropriation for the new Teacher and Principal Pathways 

programs.

G-57
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leadership

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Funding for continuation awards $25,705 $16,286 0

Number of continuation awards 34 20 0

Average continuation award $756 $814 0

Evaluation $581 $822 0

_________________

1 The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved under 

section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. In 2014, the Department 

combined funds totaling $4.8 million from a number of ESEA programs, including $58 thousand from the School 

Leadership program, in order to support new, high-priority evaluations. 2 The fiscal year 2015 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved under

section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Some or all of the funds that 

may be reserved from the School Leadership program under section 9601 may be used under the ESEA pooled 

evaluation authority in fiscal year 2015.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The Department has established the following goal with two objectives and corresponding 

performance indicators to measure the impact of the School Leadership program: 

Goal: To increase the number of new, certified principals and assistant principals and to 

improve the skills of current practicing principals and assistant principals, all serving in 

high-need schools in high-need LEAs. 

Objective: To recruit, prepare, and support teachers and individuals from other fields to 

become principals, including assistant principals, in high-need schools in high-need LEAs. 

G-58
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leadership

Measure: The percentage of participants who meet certification requirements to become a 

principal or assistant principal.

Year

2008 

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010 

Cohort

Actual

2011 50% 69% 40% 32% 30% 57%

2012 60 69 50 35 40 58

2013 70 80 60 34 50 68

2014 60

2015

2016

Measure: The percentage of participants who are certified and hired as a principal or assistant 

principal in a high-need local educational agency.

Year

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010 

Cohort

Actual

2011 70% 31% 60% 45% 50% 69%

2012 80 38 70 45 60 71

2013 41 80 46 70 65

2014 80

2015

2016

Measure: The percentage of participants certified through the funded project who are hired as 

a principal or assistant principal in a high-need LEA and who remain in that position for at least 

2 years.

Year

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011

2012 29% 98% 24%

2013 40 100 23

2014

2015

2016

Additional information: These measures track participants who are enrolled in projects 

designed to train and certify new principals and assistant principals. Grantees report data 

through annual performance reports. Participants generally take 18 to 24 months to attain 

certification, although this varies by grantee. Retention results are based on the number of 

individuals that were certified through the program and remained in the same position two years 

later. The Department will use baseline progress results to set targets for future years.

G-59
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leadership

Objective: To train and support principals and assistant principals from schools in high-need 

LEAs in order to improve their skills and increase retention.

Measure: The percentage of principals and assistant principals from schools in high-need 

local educational agencies who participated in School Leadership-funded professional 

development activities and showed an increase in their pre-post scores on a standardized 

measure of principal skills.

Year

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011 70% 25% 60% 39% 50% 30%

2012 80 55 70 60 60 51

2013 49 80 65 70 53

2014 80

2015

2016

Measure: The percentage of principals and assistant principals from schools in high-need 

LEAs who participated in School Leadership-funded professional development activities and 

remained in their administrative position for at least 2 years.

Year

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011

2012 29% 37% 100%

2013 50 34 100

2014

2015

2016

Additional information: These measures track participants who are enrolled in projects 

designed to support individuals currently serving as principals and assistant principals in highneed LEAs. Grantees report data through annual performance reports. The Department will 

use baseline progress results to set targets for future years.

New Measures

The Department established two new measures as part of the 2013 grant competition: (1) the 

percentage of principals and assistant principals who complete the SLP-funded professional 

development program and whose schools demonstrate positive change, no change, or negative 

change based on pre- and post-school site measures, of which one measure must include, if 

available, student growth (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year); and (2) the 

percentage of program graduates who are rated “effective” or “highly effective” as measured by 

G-60
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leadership

a U.S. Department of Education program approved principal evaluation system, if available. 

The Department will use baseline progress results to set targets for future years.

G-61
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

$253,172 $375,000 +$121,828

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Charter School Grants supports the planning, design, initial implementation, and expansion of 

successful charter schools, which increase educational options for parents and students and, in 

exchange for stricter accountability, are exempt from many State and local requirements 

governing regular public schools. Funds also support information dissemination activities and 

activities to improve charter schools’ access to facilities.

Grants for Planning, Design, and Initial Implementation and for Dissemination

Under subpart 1 of the program’s authorizing statute, State educational agencies (SEAs) in 

States in which State law permits charter schools to operate are eligible to compete for grants

(SEA grants). SEAs receiving grants make subgrants to charter school developers, which may 

include individuals and public and private nonprofit entities. If an eligible SEA does not receive 

a grant, charter school developers in the State may apply directly to the Department for funding 

(Non-SEA Eligible Applicant grants). Developers receive up to 3 years of assistance, of which 

they may use not more than 18 months for planning and program design and not more than 

2 years for the initial implementation of a charter school. SEAs may reserve up to 10 percent of 

their grants to make subgrants to successful charter schools for information dissemination 

activities; such schools in eligible States not receiving a grant may also apply directly to the 

Department for grants for dissemination.

In awarding SEA grants, the Department must give priority under statute to States that provide 

for review and evaluation of charter schools by their chartering agencies at least once every 

5 years to determine whether the schools are meeting their charter terms and their requirements 

and goals for student academic achievement. The Department must also give priority to States 

that do one or more of the following: (1) demonstrate progress in increasing the number of 

charter schools that are held accountable for results; (2) have chartering agencies that are not 

local educational agencies (LEAs) or, if only LEAs are chartering agencies, have an appeals 

process for prospective charter schools that initially fail to gain approval; and (3) provide charter 

schools a high degree of autonomy over their budgets and expenditures.

G-62
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

In November 2014, the Department published for public comment a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for SEA grants designed to strengthen 

the selection process and ensure that grant funds support the creation of high-quality charter 

schools. Proposed changes include a priority for SEAs in States whose chartering agencies 

employ key approval and oversight practices and selection criteria under which reviewers 

consider the quality of the State’s plan to ensure that chartering agencies approve evidencebased charter school models as well as the past performance of the State’s charter schools. 

The notice also includes a strengthened selection criterion calling on SEAs to provide more 

carefully developed plans to support educationally disadvantaged students in charter schools, 

including students with disabilities and English learners. The Department expects to publish a 

notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in spring 2015.

Grants for Replication and Expansion of Successful Charter Schools

Beginning in fiscal year 2010, appropriations acts have authorized or required the Department 

to reserve specific amounts of program funds for grants to charter management organizations 

and other nonprofit entities for the replication and expansion of successful charter school 

models (Charter Management Organization, or CMO, grants). Under Department rules, 

applicants for these grants must demonstrate that they currently operate or manage more than 

one high-quality charter school, defined as a school that shows evidence of strong academic 

results for the past three years (or over the life of the school if open for fewer than three years) 

based on increases in academic achievement and attainment for all students, closing or 

eliminating achievement gaps for student subgroups, and results for educationally 

disadvantaged students on other performance measures, such as college attendance or 

persistence rates, that are above the average results for such students in the State. The 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations act authorizes the Department to use up to $75 million for these 

grants, which provide up to 5 years of assistance.

Facilities Grants

Under the authorizing statute, the Department must use the amount appropriated above 

$200 million but not exceeding $300 million and 50 percent of any funds exceeding $300 million 

to make competitive 5-year State Facilities Incentive grants, which support per-pupil aid 

programs that assist charter schools with facility costs. States pay an increasing share of the 

cost of their per-pupil aid programs over the course of their grants. Program funds are also 

used for Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities grants, which are authorized under 

subpart 2 of the statute and which the Department awards competitively on an annual basis to 

public and private nonprofit entities (such as finance authorities and community development 

financial institutions) to assist charter schools in acquiring, constructing, and renovating facilities 

by enhancing the availability of loans or bond financing.

Appropriations language since fiscal year 2008 has revised the program’s allocation rules to 

authorize or require the Department to use specific amounts for State Facilities Incentive and 

Credit Enhancement for Charter Schools Facilities grants (the latter of which received a 

separate appropriation prior to fiscal year 2008). For fiscal year 2015, the appropriations act 

requires the Department to use up to $11 million for State Facilities Incentive grants and not 

less than $13 million for Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities grants.

G-63
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

National Activities

The authorizing statute also permits the Department to use up to $8 million of the appropriation 

for national activities. Recent years’ appropriations acts have overridden this cap and allowed 

or required the use of a higher amount for this purpose, including for technical assistance to 

chartering agencies to increase the number of high-performing charter schools. The fiscal year 

2015 appropriations act requires the Department to use not less than $11 million for these 

activities.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2011.........................................................$255,519

2012...........................................................254,836 1

2013...........................................................241,507

2014...........................................................248,172

2015...........................................................253,172

_________________

1 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2012 of $200 thousand from Charter Schools Grants to Advanced 

Placement.

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $375 million for Charter Schools Grants for fiscal year 2016, an 

increase of $121.8 million over the fiscal year 2015 level. The request reflects the 

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

supporting models of school reform that are effective in improving student outcomes. 

At the request level, funds would be allocated as follows:

• Not less than $100 million for Charter Management Organization grants, consistent with 

the Administration’s goal of increasing the number of high-quality charter schools.

• Up to $10 million for State Facilities Incentive grants to continue awards initially made in 

fiscal year 2014.

• Not less than $13 million for Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities grants, 

the same authority as in fiscal year 2015.

• Not less than $11 million for national activities, the same authority as in fiscal year 2015.

The Administration’s request would also provide increased funding for SEA and Non-SEA 

Eligible Applicant grants and includes key programmatic changes to leverage the funding 

increase to further boost the supply of high-quality public educational options available to 

students, especially students attending low-performing schools. Specifically, the request 

includes authority through appropriations language for SEAs to use a portion of grant funds to 

G-64
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

make CMO subgrants for the replication and expansion of successful schools (in addition to 

currently allowable subgrants for planning, design, and implementation), consistent with 

changes included in both the Administration’s reauthorization proposal for Charter Schools 

Grants and in reauthorization bills recently passed by the House of Representatives. In

addition, the Department would prioritize support for successful charter schools that can serve 

as enrollment options for students attending high schools with persistently low graduation rates

in one or more of the SEA, Non-SEA Eligible Applicant, and CMO competitions. 

The Department’s request also continues the policy initiated in fiscal year 2014 appropriations of 

allowing grantees to use funds to support preschool education. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

SEA grants

Amount for new awards 0 $114,241 $88,879

Amount for continuation awards $139,167 25,505 118,826

Non-SEA Eligible Applicant grants

Amount for new awards 3,589 0 6,000

Amount for continuation awards 3,907 4,926 1,795

Charter Management Organization 

grants

Amount for new awards 36,129 59,582 26,479

Amount for continuation awards 36,446 15,418 98,521

State Facilities Incentive grants

Amount for new awards 11,000 0 0

Amount for continuation awards 0 9,000 10,000

Credit Enhancement for Charter 

Facilities grants

Amount for new awards 11,930 13,000 13,000

Peer review of new award 

applications 376 500 500

National activities 5,254 9,734 9,125

G-65
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Pooled evaluation authority 374 1 1,266 2 1,875 2

_______________

1 The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. In 2014, 

the Department combined funds totaling $4.8 million from a number of ESEA programs, including 

$374 thousand from Charter Schools Grants, in order to support new, high-priority evaluations. 2 The fiscal year 2015 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

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

Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget would continue this authority. Some or all of the funds that may 

be reserved from Charter Schools Grants program under section 9601 may be used under the ESEA 

pooled evaluation authority in fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To support the creation of a large number of high-quality charter schools.

Objective: To encourage the development of a large number of high-quality charter schools 

that are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for 

enabling students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all 

students.

Measure: The number of States that have charter school legislation (including the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico). 

Year Target Actual

2011 44 42

2012 44 43

2013 44 43

2014 44 43

2015 44

2016 44

Additional information: In 2011 and in 2012, after more than 8 years with no change in the 

number of States with charter school legislation, this number increased when first Maine (in 

G-66
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

2011) and then Washington (in 2012) approved such legislation. The remaining States without 

charter school laws are mainly rural States (e.g., South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia). 

Measure: The number of charter schools in operation around the Nation.

Year Target Actual

2011 5,660 5,339

2012 6,130 5,741

2013 6,600 6,081

2014 7,070

2015 7,540

2016 8,010

Additional information: Data on the number of charter schools in operation are provided 

annually by SEAs and are verified by the Department. The 2014 data for this measure are 

expected to be available in December 2015.

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above proficient on State assessments in reading. 

Year Target Actual

2011 84.6% 70.9%

2012 89.7 68.6

2013 94.8 64.2

2014 100.0

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade students in charter schools who are achieving at or 

above proficient on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2011 83.5% 71.2%

2012 89.0 65.1

2013 94.5 61.4

2014 100.0

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above proficient on State assessments in reading. 

Year Target Actual

2011 84.8% 71.2%

2012 89.9 68.7

2013 94.9 66.6

2014 100.0

G-67
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade students in charter schools who are achieving at or 

above proficient on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2011 79.1% 60.2%

2012 86.1 56.5

2013 93.1 53.7

2014 100.0

Additional information: Performance targets for these measures are based on the ESEA goal 

of 100 percent student proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014; the Department will 

establish targets for these measures for 2015 and future years at a later date. Data for these 

measures are collected through grantee annual performance reports. Analysis of the data has 

found notable variation in performance among funded schools. The 2014 data for these 

measures are expected to be available in December 2015.

Efficiency Measures

Measure: The ratio of funds leveraged by States for charter facilities to funds awarded by the 

Department under the State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grant Program.

Year 2009 Cohort Target 2009 Cohort Actual

2011 2.9 2.4

2012 4.2 3.1

2013 5.8 3.4

2014 6.3 6.5

Additional information: This efficiency measure assesses the State Facilities Incentive grants 

by examining the ratio of funds leveraged by grantees to funds awarded by the Department. 

The leveraging ratio is the total funds available (the Federal grant and the State match) divided 

by the Federal grant for a given year. The Department will establish targets for this measure for 

the 2014 cohort (for 2015 and future years) at a later date.

The Department has also developed a measure to assess the cost efficiency, across States, of 

the Federal investment in supporting charter school start-ups. The measure is defined as the 

Federal cost per student of launching a successful school (defined as a school in operation for 

3 or more years). Data for 2011 show an average cost of $920 per student, for 2012 an 

average cost of $1,010, and for 2013 an average cost of $1,056. Data for this measure, 

collected through grantee annual performance reports, assist the Department in determining 

what constitutes a reasonable cost per student for different types of charter schools. 

G-68
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

Other Performance Information

2010 Department Evaluation

In 2010, the Department released findings from its first rigorous impact evaluation of charter 

schools, which addressed the effects of charter school strategies on student achievement and 

satisfaction and on parent satisfaction. Researchers also examined school factors that affect 

student outcomes (e.g., school or class size, proportion of certified teachers) and the extent to 

which policy conditions and autonomy in school operation influence effectiveness. 

Approximately 36 charter middle schools across 15 States participated in this random 

assignment study. The researchers followed two treatment groups of students and a control 

group for two consecutive grade levels and also surveyed students, parents, and principals. 

The evaluation showed that the impact of charter middle schools on student achievement varied 

across participating schools, with schools that served more low-income or low-achieving 

students showing statistically significant positive effects in mathematics and no significant 

effects in reading, and with schools that served more advantaged students showing significant 

negative effects in both subjects. The evaluation also examined whether achievement impacts 

were associated with certain school characteristics and found some positive impacts for charter 

schools with comparatively longer hours of operation or with comparatively higher revenue per 

student, but these findings were not statistically significant once the researchers controlled for 

school and student characteristics. Lastly, the evaluation found no significant relationship 

between charter school policies and student achievement. 

2013 CREDO Evaluations

The “National Charter School Study 2013,” a study by researchers at Stanford University’s 

Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) that updates and expands CREDO’s 

2009 study “Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States,” examined longitudinal 

student-level data from a sample of 3,620 charter schools across 25 States, the District of 

Columbia, and New York City (NYC) (treated separately from the rest of the State) to determine 

whether students who attend charter schools performed better academically than if they had 

attended a regular public school. The researchers found that 29 percent of charter schools in 

the sample demonstrated significantly higher growth in mathematics achievement and 

25 percent demonstrated significantly higher growth in reading compared to regular public 

schools in the sample while 31 percent of charter schools in the sample posted mathematics 

gains and 19 percent posted reading gains that were significantly below what those students 

would have seen if enrolled in a regular public school. Overall, the students in these charter 

schools have shown improvement over the results from 2009 and slow and steady progress 

over the past 5 years. Among the group of 16 States from the original study in 2009, the rise in 

performance was attributed in part to the closure of poorly performing charter schools and by 

declining performance in regular public schools over the same period of time.

The CREDO analysis also showed that, in general, charter schools have had different effects on 

students of different family backgrounds. For students from low-income families, AfricanAmerican students, or English Learners, charter schools had a larger positive effect 

academically compared to regular public schools. The researchers also found that students 

G-69
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

perform better in charter schools over time, with charter school students on average 

experiencing smaller learning gains than their peers in regular public schools in their first year 

but significant improvement in learning gains in the second year and beyond.

In January 2013, CREDO also released findings from “Charter School Growth and Replication,” 

which examines, in charter schools across 25 States, changes in school performance in the 

years following a school’s opening and the implications of these changes for school replication. 

The study found, among other things, that schools with initial high performance with respect to 

student achievement tended to stay high performers over time, while the performance of initially 

low-performing schools remained low. The study also found that schools opened by a CMO

typically performed at a level similar to the average of the other schools operated by the CMO, 

and that CMO schools on average produced stronger results for minority students and students 

from low-income families than did independently operated charter schools. 

Other Studies

Other recent studies have used a more rigorous experimental research design to compare the 

performance of students who were admitted by lottery into oversubscribed charter schools and 

those who were not admitted and instead attended regular public schools. For example, Hoxby, 

Murarka, and Kang, in a 2009 report for the NYC Charter Schools Evaluation Project (“How 

New York City’s Charter Schools Affect Achievement”), found a positive achievement effect for 

students attending the city’s charter schools. By the third grade, the average NYC charter 

school student scored 5.3 scale-score points above his or her peers in regular public schools in 

English language arts and 5.8 scale-score points above in mathematics. In grades four through 

eight, the average charter school student gained 3.6 more scale-score points in English 

language arts and 5.0 more scale-score points in mathematics than did peers in regular public 

schools each year. Hoxby and colleagues noted that, on average, students who attended a 

charter school for grades kindergarten through eight scored about 23 scale-score points higher 

in English language arts and 30 scale-score points higher in mathematics compared to their 

peers in regular public schools, closing about 66 and 86 percent of the achievement gap in 

those subject areas, respectively. The evaluation also found that students applying to NYC 

charter schools were more likely to be African-American (63 percent versus 34 percent) and 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (92 percent versus 72 percent) than students in the 

regular public schools in the district. The researchers also examined charter school policies in 

relation to achievement and found that effects on achievement were associated with the length 

of the school year, the number of minutes devoted to English language arts during the school 

day, whether teacher compensation was based on performance, and whether a school’s 

mission statement emphasized academic performance

G-70
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2015 2016 Change

$91,647 $91,647 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Magnet Schools Assistance program provides grants to eligible local educational agencies to 

establish and operate magnet schools that are part of a court-ordered, agency-ordered, or 

federally approved voluntary desegregation plan. Magnet school programs aim to eliminate, 

reduce, or prevent minority-group isolation in elementary and secondary schools while 

strengthening students' knowledge of academic subjects and their grasp of marketable career 

and technical skills. The special curriculum of a magnet school can attract substantial numbers 

of students from different socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds and provide greater 

opportunities for desegregation efforts to succeed.

Grantees receive awards for up to 3 years and may not receive more than $4 million per year. 

Funds must be used for activities intended to improve academic achievement and may be used 

for, among other things, planning and promotional activities, salaries of teachers and other 

instructional personnel, and acquisition of books, materials, and equipment. Expenditures for 

planning are limited to no more than 50 percent of a grant in the first year and 15 percent in the 

second and third years.

By statute, the Department gives priority for grants to applicants that demonstrate the greatest 

need for assistance, that propose to develop new magnet schools or significantly revise existing 

magnet school programs, and that use methods other than academic examinations (such as a 

lottery) to admit students. In addition, applicants that did not receive a grant the previous fiscal 

year receive priority for any funds appropriated above $75 million. In the most recent grant 

competition (in fiscal year 2013), the Department also gave priority to applicants whose projects 

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

The Department may use up to 2 percent of funds for national activities, including evaluation, 

technical assistance, and dissemination of information on successful magnet school programs.

G-71
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2011...........................................................$99,800

2012.............................................................96,7051

2013.............................................................91,647 

2014.............................................................91,647

2015.............................................................91,647

_________________

1 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2012 of $2,906 thousand from Magnet Schools Assistance to 

Advanced Placement.

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $91.6 million for Magnet Schools Assistance for fiscal year 2016, 

the same as the fiscal year 2015 level. The request would support a new cohort of awards. In 

the competition for these awards, the Department intends to continue a priority for applicants 

whose projects promote STEM education.

Magnet Schools Assistance remains an important element of Federal efforts both to increase 

the number of high-quality educational options available to students and families and to 

increase diversity and eliminate minority group isolation in schools. With their specialized 

curricula and offerings, magnet schools can be key components of efforts by local educational 

agencies to improve student achievement and graduation rates.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Amount of awards $89,815 $89,814 $89,314

Number of new awards 1 0 20–30

Number of continuation awards 27 28 1

Range of awards $557–$4,000 $757–$4,000 $500–$4,000

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 0 $500

National activities $1,832 $1,833 $1,833 _______________

NOTE: The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved under 

section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The fiscal year 2015 

appropriations act provided the same authority and the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget would continue this 

authority. While the Department did not pool funds from Magnet Schools Assistance under this authority in fiscal year 

2014, it may do so in fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

G-72
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. 

The 2014 data for these measures for the 2013 cohort are expected to be available in spring 

2015.

Goal: Students have access to high-quality education in desegregated magnet schools.

Objective: Federally funded magnet schools will eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority group 

isolation in targeted elementary and secondary schools with substantial proportions of minority 

group students.

Measure: The percentage of magnet schools in which the student applicant pool reduces, 

prevents, or eliminates minority group isolation.

Year 2010 Cohort Target 2010 Cohort Actual

2011 85.2% 39.2%

2012 90.1 46.4

2013 95.0 38.4

Additional information: In 2006, the Department established annual performance targets for 

this measure using a baseline of 58.3 percent and a goal of having 100 percent of schools 

reduce, prevent, or eliminate minority-group isolation by 2014. 

In 2010, the Department published interim final regulations for the program that provide districts 

with greater flexibility in demonstrating that their magnet or feeder schools will eliminate, reduce, 

or prevent racial group isolation and that their voluntary desegregation plans are adequate 

under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The regulations removed the definition of “minority-group 

isolation” because it required districts to use binary racial classifications and prohibited the 

creation of magnet schools that result in minority-group enrollments in magnet and feeder 

schools that exceed the districtwide average of minority-group students. These interim final 

regulations, which were adopted as final in November 2012, apply to the 2010 cohort. As a 

result, this measure for the 2010 cohort reflects the percentage of magnet schools that have 

met individually determined objectives for reducing minority group isolation, without reference to 

districtwide averages used for previous cohorts. The measure also examines the enrollment of 

schools in the 2010 cohort, not the applicant pool of those schools.

G-73
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

Objective: Magnet school students meet their State's academic achievement standards.

Measure: Percentage of magnet schools in which students from major racial and ethnic groups 

meet or exceed their State's annual progress standards in reading.

Measure: Percentage of magnet schools in which students from major racial and ethnic groups 

meet or exceed their State's annual progress standards in mathematics.

Year 2010 Cohort Target 2010 Cohort Actual

2011 88.5% 56.7%

2012 92.3 54.3

2013 96.1 50.2

Additional information: These measures track the percentage of students in participating 

magnet schools who score at the proficient level or above on State assessments in reading and 

in mathematics. Targets for these measures for the 2010 cohort are based on the ESEA goal of 

all students being proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. 

The remaining performance measures focus on sustainability and examine the percentages of 

magnet schools that remain in operation and that make adequate yearly progress (AYP) 3 years 

after Federal funding ends. Analysis of the sustainability data for the 2007 cohort found that 

91 percent of the 175 magnet schools that received funding remained in operation in the 2012–

2013 school year and that, of the 62 schools that remained in operation and for which data were 

available, 21 percent made AYP, a low result that may be attributed in part to the increasingly 

high proficiency targets associated with AYP under current law.

Efficiency Measure

The Department has developed a measure to assess the efficiency of Federal investments in 

supporting magnet schools. The measure is defined as the Federal cost per student in a 

magnet school receiving assistance. Data for the 2010 cohort show an average cost of 

$753 per student in 2011, $958 per student in 2012, and $840 per student in 2013. 

Other Performance Information

In 2008, following a year-long feasibility study, the Department initiated a national evaluation of 

magnet schools that focuses on a single category of schools receiving funding through the 

MSAP program: elementary schools that convert to whole-school magnets. The study is 

examining the relationship of magnet conversion to outcomes for resident students (those who 

live within a magnet school’s attendance zone) and non-resident students (those who live 

outside the attendance zone but choose to attend the school). The evaluation involves fiscal 

year 2004 and 2007 grantees and uses a comparative interrupted time series design to examine 

Year 2010 Cohort Target 2010 Cohort Actual

2011 88.4% 57.3%

2012 92.2 54.5

2013 96.0 53.1

G-74
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

the relationship between magnet school conversion and student achievement and other 

outcomes, including minority-group isolation in schools. The evaluation is also examining how 

factors related to student achievement vary according to characteristics of the magnet schools 

and comparison schools and includes principal and magnet school coordinator surveys. A final 

evaluation report is expected to be released in spring 2015.

G-75
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Advanced placement

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

$28,483 $28,483 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title I, Part G of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes two 

programs: the Advanced Placement Test Fee program and the Advanced Placement Incentive 

program. The purpose of both programs is to support State and local efforts to increase access 

to Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and other approved advanced

courses and tests (collectively referred to as “advanced placement courses and tests”) for 

students from low-income families. The statute requires the Department to give priority to 

funding the Advanced Placement Test Fee program, with remaining funds allocated to 

Advanced Placement Incentive grants.

Advanced Placement Test Fee Program: Under this program, the Department provides

noncompetitive awards to State educational agencies to enable them to cover all or part of the 

cost of test fees for students from low-income families who are enrolled in an advanced

placement course and plan to take an advanced placement test. By subsidizing test fees, the 

program encourages students from low-income families to take advanced placement courses 

and tests and obtain college credit for their courses, thereby reducing the time and cost required

to complete a postsecondary degree.

Advanced Placement Incentive Program: This program authorizes 3-year competitive awards to 

State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and national nonprofit educational 

entities with expertise in providing advanced placement services to expand access for students 

from low-income families to advanced placement courses and programs. Authorized activities 

include, but are not limited to, teacher training, development of pre-advanced placement 

courses, activities to enhance coordination and articulation between grade levels in order to 

prepare students for academic achievement in advanced placement courses, the purchase of 

books and supplies, and activities to enhance the availability of and expand participation in 

online advanced placement courses. 

In fiscal year 2013, available funds were not sufficient for grants under both the Test Fee and 

Incentive programs. As a result, then-current Incentive program grantees did not receive 

G-76
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Advanced placement

continuation funding for the third and final year of their projects. Further, to prevent a funding 

shortfall under the Test Fee program (stemming from the combination of reduced appropriations 

and rapid growth in the number of advanced placement tests taken annually by students from 

low-income families), the Department significantly scaled back its support by eliminating its

coverage of test registration fees (i.e., one-time per-student fees that are separate from and in 

addition to the fees for individual tests) and reducing the maximum amount of its subsidy such 

that States, school districts, or students were required to contribute a minimum of $10 per test. 

In most States receiving Test Fee grants, this policy resulted in students from low-income 

families having to pay a share of advanced placement test fee costs for the first time. In 

fiscal year 2014, based in part on predicted continued growth in advanced placement test-taking 

by low-income students, the Department decreased its maximum per-test contribution by 

another $8, for a total minimum State, local, or student contribution of $18 per test. To help 

defray these costs, a number of grantee States that previously did not provide a State-level 

contribution began to do so, although in the majority of States the portion of test fees not 

covered by the Department continued to be borne fully by students. As of February 2015, the 

Department had not yet determined the Federal subsidy level for the Test Fee program in 2015.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2011................................ ..........................$43,253

2012................................ ............................30,0551

2013................................ ............................28,890 2

2014................................ ............................28,483

2015................................ ............................28,483

_________________

1 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2012 of $2,906 thousand from Magnet Schools Assistance and 

$200 thousand from Charter Schools Grants to Advanced Placement.

2 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2013 of $407 thousand from the Fund for the Improvement of 

Education: Programs of National Significance.

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $28.5 million for Advanced Placement for fiscal year 2016, the

same as the fiscal year 2015 level. The Administration expects that the number of advanced 

placement tests taken by students from low-income families will continue to increase in 2016 

and future years. To minimize the impact of limited Federal funding on students, the 

Department intends to issue regulations requiring States receiving Test Fee grants to provide 

matching funds. If implemented, these regulations would allow the Department to specify the 

minimum amount of matching funds a State must provide, based in part on available Federal 

resources, in the annual notice inviting applications for Test Fee grants.

In addition, the Department intends to set its maximum 2016 per-test contribution under the Test 

Fee program such that a portion of the request is available for new grants under the Incentive 

program. The Administration will also seek appropriations language allowing Incentive program 

funds to be used for activities expanding access to accelerated learning options beyond AP and 

G-77
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Advanced placement

IB programs and that allow students to take college-level courses (including courses in career 

and technical education) and earn college credit while in high school, including dual-enrollment 

programs and early college high schools. The Department could give special consideration for 

Incentive program grants to applicants whose projects are supported by evidence of 

effectiveness. 

Although the number of AP tests taken by low-income families continues to increase annually, 

the passage rate has remained below 40 percent since 2005. Moreover, numerous reports from 

the field indicate that minority students and students in low-performing schools are inadequately 

prepared for the rigors of advanced placement courses or have inadequate access to other 

accelerated learning options. For example, data from the Department’s Civil Rights Data 

Collection 2011–12 show that Hispanic, Black, and Native American students comprise 

38 percent of high school students but only 18.5 percent of high school students who passed at 

least 1 AP exam. Consequently, the Administration believes there should be a stronger 

emphasis, through a renewed Incentive grants program, on improving the quality of instruction 

to better prepare these students to successfully complete advanced coursework as well as on 

increasing the availability of high-quality accelerated learning programs that better introduce 

students to “college culture” and can help them reduce costs by avoiding remedial courses and 

graduating from college early or on time. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Test Fee program

Amount for new awards $28,483 $28,483 $23,483

Number of new awards 42 42 42

Incentive program

Amount for new awards 0 0 $5,000

Number of new awards 0 0 8–12

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

G-78
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Advanced placement

Goal: To increase the numbers of low-income high school students prepared to pursue 

higher education.

Objective: Encourage a greater number of low-income and other underrepresented categories 

of students to participate in the AP and IB programs and pass the exams.

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests taken by low-income public school 

students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2011 500,265 596,241

2012 600,318 710,100

2013 781,110 768,010

2014 859,221 848,146

2015 945,143

2016 1,039,657

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests passed (tests receiving scores of 3–5) by 

low-income public school students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2011 203,108 210,870

2012 222,118 268,860

2013 300,727 289,283

2014 335,955 330,486

2015 375,221

2016 418,982

Measure: The percentage of Advanced Placement tests passed (tests receiving scores of 3–5) 

by low-income public school students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2011 40.4% 35.4%

2012 37.0 37.9

2013 38.5 37.7

2014 39.1 39.0

2015 39.7

2016 40.3

Additional Information: The data for these measures are obtained from the College Board 

and capture the effects of efforts to increase low-income public school students’ participation in 

AP courses and success on AP exams. The targets for these measures have been revised 

beginning with the 2013 targets based on actual performance in 2012.

G-79
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Advanced placement

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests taken by minority (Hispanic, Black, Native 

American) public school students nationally.

Additional Information: The data for this measure are obtained from the College Board and 

capture the effects of efforts to increase minority public school students’ participation in AP 

programs. The targets for this measure have been revised beginning with the 2013 target 

based on actual performance in 2012.

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The cost per passage of an Advanced Placement test by a low-income public school 

student.

Year Target Actual

2011 $91.29 $151.45

2012 91.29 93.16

2013 91.29 123.48

2014 91.29 89.60

2015 91.29

2016 91.29

Additional Information: The results for this measure are calculated by dividing the total 

amount of Federal funds that States receiving AP Test Fee grants report spending on AP test 

fees by the total number of such tests passed by low-income students in those States. The high 

cost per passage in 2011 could be explained partly by the fact that California stopped partially 

subsidizing test fee costs with State funds that year, thus increasing the Federal share of test 

fee costs in that State. The decrease in cost per passage in 2012 could be explained, in part, 

by the fact that the Department’s Test Fee grants were sufficient to cover only approximately 

75% of States’ requests for test fee support. Similarly, the lower cost per passage in 2014 could 

be partly attributed to the reduction in the Department’s maximum per-test contribution. 

Year Target Actual

2011 675,520 700,872

2012 721,562 751,428

2013 788,999 846,872

2014 828,449 931,130

2015 869,871

2016 913,365

G-80
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready-to-learn television

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part D, Subpart 3)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

Period of Fund 

Availability 2015 2016 Change

$25,741 $25,741 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorization is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Ready-to-Learn (RTL) Television is designed to facilitate student academic achievement by 

supporting the development and distribution of educational video programming for preschool 

and elementary school children and their parents, caregivers, and teachers. At least 60 percent 

of the funding must be used to:

• Develop educational television programming for preschool and elementary school children 

and the accompanying support materials and services that can be used to promote the 

effective use of such programming;

• Develop television programming (and digital content, such as applications and online 

educational games, containing RTL-based children’s programming) that is specifically 

designed for nationwide distribution over public television stations’ digital broadcasting 

channels and the Internet, along with accompanying resources for parents and 

caregivers; and

• Support contracts with public telecommunications and related entities to ensure that 

programs are widely distributed.

Remaining funds may be used to develop and disseminate education and training materials, 

including interactive programs that are designed to promote school readiness through the 

effective use of educational video programs.

Funds are awarded competitively and only public telecommunications entities are eligible to 

receive awards. Applicants must have the capacity to: develop and distribute high-quality 

educational and instructional television programming that is accessible to disadvantaged 

preschool and elementary school children; contract with the producers of children’s television 

programming; negotiate these contracts in a manner that returns to the grantee an appropriate 

G-81
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready-to-learn television

share of income from sales of program-related products; and target programming and materials 

to meet specific State and local needs, while providing educational outreach at the local level.

Grantees are required to consult with the Departments of Education and Health and Human 

Services on strategies for maximizing the use of quality educational programming for preschool

and elementary school children. Grantees must also coordinate activities with other Federal 

programs that have major training components related to early childhood development. 

The Department plans to award three 5-year grants in 2015. The 2015 competition will invite 

applicants to produce and distribute high quality, age appropriate and standards-based 

educational television and digital media content that focuses on science or American history and 

civics.

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

Year (dollars in thousands)

2011...........................................................$27,245

2012.............................................................27,194

2013.............................................................25,771

2014.............................................................25,741

2015.............................................................25,741

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2016 request includes $25.7 million for the Ready-to-learn 

(RTL) television program, the same as the 2015 level. With these funds, the Department 

expects to continue supporting awards made in fiscal year 2015. Children, particularly children 

in high-poverty settings, spend large amounts of time watching television and using digital 

media. Researchers in many fields have looked carefully at whether and how television viewing 

might contribute to the “literacy gap,” and, conversely, whether and how television and digital 

media can be used as a tool to promote literacy development. Recent research suggests that 

television and transmedia can have a positive impact on children’s literacy and learning, 

provided certain conditions are in place. Producers and developers must understand how 

children learn, and how programming content can facilitate such learning. Individual episodes 

should reflect what research tells us about effective educational programming. For example, 

programs that succeed in helping children learn tend to help children understand how to watch 

and make sense of what they see. Such programs also develop familiarity by using recurring 

characters and situations, repeat key tasks and information, link knowledge to what children 

already know, and are carefully paced to keep children cognitively engaged throughout each 

episode.

Early childhood, preschool, and elementary school curricula typically emphasize basic skills in 

math and reading. RTL content is specifically designed to reinforce young children’s literacy 

skills, emphasizing letter recognition, vocabulary, fluency, rhyming, and comprehension. 

Through targeted outreach and marketing campaigns, grantees actively reach out to parents 

and caregivers, particularly in high-poverty rural and urban communities, to encourage the use 

of RTL programming to support the skills that children need to succeed in school.

G-82
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready-to-learn television

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Number of new awards 0 3 0

Number of continuation awards 3 0 3

New award funding 0 $25,424 0

Continuation award funding $25,681 0 $25,681

Peer review 0 257 0

Evaluation (review of grant products) 60 60 1 60 1

Total 25,741 25,741 25,741

_________________

1 The fiscal year 2015 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved under 

section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The Administration’s 

fiscal year 2016 budget would continue this authority. Some or all of the funds that may be reserved from the Readyto-Learn program under section 9601 may be used under the ESEA pooled evaluation authority in fiscal years 2015 

and 2016.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

For the 2010 competition, the Department established two invitational priorities: (1) developing 

educational content in reading or mathematics that is designed to increase the literacy or 

numeracy skills of low-income children ages 2 to 8, delivering the content through coordinated 

use of multiple media platforms, and developing effective outreach strategies; and (2) providing 

for the development and dissemination of products and results through open educational 

resources and by making the products freely available through various media platforms. In 

addition, applicants could earn competitive preference points for projects proposing a research 

plan that was based on rigorous scientifically based research methods to assess effectiveness. 

The Department made three awards, and the 2010 grantees have focused on producing new 

materials and strategies that reflect changes in television distribution and production and the 

rise of new digital media platforms. Grantees generally began their projects by creating and 

launching digital learning materials (including video), using these materials to stimulate interest 

among target children, and then developing television shows. 

Performance Measures

In 2012, the Department revised the performance measures for the RTL program to better 

measure both RTL’s effectiveness in improving what children learn and the number of children 

RTL is reaching. The revised measures are: 

(1) the percentage of summative experimental or quasi-experimental research studies that 

demonstrate positive and statistically significant gains in math or literacy skills when RTL 

transmedia properties, such as applications and online educational games, are compared 

G-83
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready-to-learn television

to similar non-RTL-funded digital properties or to other more traditional educational 

materials; 

(2) the percentage of educational transmedia products, along with necessary supporting 

materials, that are deemed to be of high quality in promoting learning of math or literacy by 

an independent panel of expert reviewers; and 

(3) the number of children who use RTL-produced educational media products, 

disaggregated by individual product, as determined by appropriate industry standard 

metrics or, when available, by tracking tools.

The three grantees planned a total of seven experimental or quasi-experimental research 

studies, to be conducted beginning in year 3 of the grant. The results of these studies provide 

data on the first performance measure. The Department received the first three studies in 2013. 

All three studies found that children who use RTL-produced educational media products 

demonstrate positive and statistically significant gains in math or literacy skills when RTL 

transmedia properties are compared to either similar non-RTL funded digital properties or to 

other more traditional educational materials. Therefore, in 2013, 100 percent of experimental or 

quasi-experimental research studies conducted by RTL grantees met the first performance 

measure. In 2014, the Department received two research studies for review, both of which 

found that children using RLT-produced products demonstrated statistically significantly gains in 

math skills compared to children who used similar non-RTL products. Therefore, in 2014, 

100 percent of the research studies met the performance measure. 

For the second performance measure, the Department asked expert panel members to review a 

random sample of current RTL transmedia products and provide a quality rating using criteria 

developed by the Department. The panel members rated products on a 5-point scale. In order 

for any particular product to achieve a rating of “high quality,” a product had to secure an 

average score of 3.8 across the panel members. In 2012, two of three transmedia product 

suites reviewed were of high quality; in 2013, two of five suites reviewed were of high quality; 

and in 2014, three of five suites reviewed were of high quality.

G-84
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready-to-learn television

For the third performance measure, grantees reported on the number of children who used 

RTL-produced products, by type of product. In 2013, 46.5 million users accessed RTLproduced educational media products. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) reported 

46.4 million users, of which 30.7 million watched CPB television shows, 15.0 million used Webbased games, and 784 thousand downloaded mobile apps. Window to the World (WTTW) 

reported a total of 38.5 thousand users, 23.5 thousand of whom used web-based products and 

14.5 thousand of whom participated in one of WTTW’s 25 pilot programs. Finally, the Hispanic 

Information and Telecommunications Network (HITN) reported 632 children who used HITN’s 

mobile apps and accompanying transmedia at HITN pilot sites. In 2014, 41.8 million users 

accessed RTL-produced educational media products. CPB reported 35.9 million users, which 

includes PBS television viewers, PBS Kids website users, web application downloads, and 

children participating in outreach programs. WTTW reported 615.6 thousand users including

web users, participants in outreach programs, and those who accessed WTTW products via 

YouTube. Finally, HITN reported 6.3 million users, which includes HITN viewers, pilot sites, 

museum partners, website and social media users, community events, and conference 

attendees.

Efficiency Measure

The Department developed a single efficiency measure for the RTL program: dollars leveraged 

from non-Federal sources over 5 years (the length of each grant award) per Federal dollar 

dedicated to core non-outreach program activities. Because high-quality children’s television 

programs are expensive to develop, produce, and distribute, Federal support for new 

programming through the RTL programs is typically used by grantees to attract additional 

revenue from the private sector. Program quality is directly affected by the extent to which 

grantees succeed in using Federal dollars to leverage additional funds from alternate sources. 

Therefore, the Department will use this measure to compare the relative success of RTL 

 High Quality

 Good Quality

 Poor Quality

 – High Quality 

 Cut Off Score

G-85
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready-to-learn television

grantees in leveraging non-Federal investments for the development and production of new 

children’s television programs. 

Because the Department does not expect grantees to establish annual leveraging targets, and 

does not set a schedule for obtaining matching funds, the meaningful period of analysis for 

purposes of comparing grantee performance is the entire 5-year award period. During the 

5-year period comprising fiscal years 2005–2009, the Department provided two grantees with 

$98.55 million in funding for programming. These two grantees together contributed a total of 

$66.15 million in non-Federal funding to programming activities, or $0.67 non-Federal dollars for 

every Federal dollar; the individual grantee amounts were $0.29 and $1.03. Initially, the 

Department had planned to use the $0.67 figure established by the 2005 grantees as the 

baseline against which to measure future efficiency. However, because of changes instituted to 

the program in 2010, grantees will be producing fewer television shows and instead will be 

focusing, at least initially, on the creation and distribution of digital media products such as 

applications and online educational games. This makes it easier and less expensive to release 

content and requires fewer external funds to be leveraged in support of television production. In 

the first year of the 2010 grants, the three grantees leveraged $9.8 million of non-Federal 

support compared to $19.5 million in Federal dollars spent on production, or $0.50 of nonFederal dollars for every Federal dollar. In 2014, the three grantees leveraged $0.73 of nonFederal dollars for every Federal dollar spent. ($11.7 million of non-Federal support compared 

to $16.0 million in Federal dollars spent on production.)

G-86
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fund for th e Improvement of Edu cation:

Fund for the improvement of education: programs of national significance

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Period of Fund Availability 2015 2016 Change

$48,000 $41,926 -$6,074

_______________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE) provides authority for the Department to 

support nationally significant programs to improve the quality of elementary and secondary 

education at the State and local levels and help all students meet challenging State academic 

content standards and student achievement standards. The types of programs that may be 

supported include:

• Activities to promote systemic education reform at the State and local levels, including 

scientifically based research, development, and evaluation designed to improve student 

academic achievement and strategies for effective parent and community involvement;

• Programs at the State and local levels that are designed to yield significant results, including 

programs to explore approaches to public school choice and school-based decisionmaking;

• Recognition programs, including financial awards to States, local educational agencies, and 

schools that have made the greatest progress in improving the academic achievement of 

economically disadvantaged students and students from major racial and ethnic minority 

groups and in closing the academic achievement gap for those groups of students farthest 

away from the proficient level on the academic assessments administered by the State.

• Scientifically based studies and evaluations of education reform strategies and innovations, 

and the dissemination of information on the effectiveness of those strategies and 

innovations;

• Activities to support Scholar-Athlete Games;

• Programs to promote voter participation in American elections; and

• Demonstrations of the effectiveness of programs under which school districts or schools 

contract with private management organizations to reform a school or schools.

G-87
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fund for the improvement of education: programs of national significance

The Department may carry out activities under this authority directly or through grants and 

contracts to State or local educational agencies; institutions of higher education; and other 

public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions. Awards may be based on 

announced competitions or may support unsolicited proposals.

All funded activities must be designed so that their effectiveness is readily ascertainable and is

assessed using rigorous research and evaluations. Each application for funds must establish 

clear objectives, which are based on research, for the proposed grant or contract and describe 

the activities the applicant will carry out in order to meet the stated objectives. The Department 

must use a peer review process to review applications for awards. Recipients of awards must 

evaluate the effectiveness of their activities and report such information as may be required to 

determine program effectiveness, and the Department must make the evaluations publicly 

available. The Department may require matching funds for activities under this program.

In fiscal year 2015, the Department is using FIE funds to make new and continuation grants 

under the Full-Service Community Schools program and the Javits Gifted and Talented

Students Education program. In fiscal year 2015, FIE is supporting continuation grants for the 

Education Facilities Clearinghouse and for the Innovative Approaches to Literacy initiative, 

which awards competitive grants to national nonprofit organizations and local educational 

agencies (LEAs) for provision of books and literacy activities to children and families in highneed communities. Fiscal year 2015 funds will also be used to support a non-cognitive initiative 

under FIE.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2011 ......................................................................................$12,009

2012 ....................................................................................... 40,823

2013 ....................................................................................... 38,280

2014 ....................................................................................... 42,376

2015 ....................................................................................... 48,000

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $41.9 million for the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE)

Programs of National Significance in 2015, $6.1 million less than the 2015 level. The requested

level of funding would allow the Department to support the following activities in 2016:

• $10 million for a non-cognitive initiative, which would provide competitive grants to school 

district and researcher partnerships to develop and test interventions to improve students’ 

non-cognitive skills in the middle grades, that are foundational to students’ academic 

achievement and life success. 

An emerging body of research indicates that non-cognitive interventions, which improve 

factors like self-control and social and emotional skills, can have as much, if not more, 

impact on their grades and perseverance in school than academic interventions. For 

G-88
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fund for the improvement of education: programs of national significance

example, teaching kids that their minds are like muscles that grow with hard work and 

perseverance as compared to fixed traits like eye color, increases academic success and 

resilience in school. In part, this is because students then understand that academic 

setbacks reflect inadequate effort rather than an innate inability to master the material. 

Academic perseverance, which is defined as persisting in the pursuit of academic goals 

despite challenges and setbacks, requires multiple non-cognitive skills, and is one of the 

important non-cognitive factors that determine students’ success. However, relatively little is 

known about how schools can implement efforts to improve non-cognitive skills in a 

comprehensive fashion, integrating them into classroom practices and school culture. This 

initiative would develop and test various approaches (including both professional 

development for teachers and comprehensive models that include interventions for 

students) to non-cognitive skills development during the middle grades. The middle grades 

are a critical time in students’ academic trajectories; during this period, many children lose 

interest in, engagement with, and motivation for academic work, increasing their likelihood of 

dropping out of high school. Grants would be structured to assist researchers in program 

development, provide ongoing feedback in a continuous improvement framework, document 

lessons learned, help development assess comprehensive measures of non-cognitive 

factors, and conduct rigorous evaluations that help establish the most effective ways of 

integrating non-cognitive training into school learning environments. These grants would 

enable districts to lead innovation and development in this area and provide scalable models 

for districts and schools around the country. Grants would be for $1–2 million over a 4-year 

time period that includes a planning year and a final evaluation.

• $5 million for a Disconnected Youth Initiative, which would strengthen services and improve 

outcomes for disconnected youth (defined as individuals, ages 14–24, who are neither 

employed nor enrolled in an educational institution or who are at high-risk of dropping out of 

high school). As a result of authority enacted in the 2014 appropriations act, the 

Administration has begun implementation of Performance Partnership Pilots, which will give 

States and localities enhanced flexibility in administering Federal youth-serving programs in 

exchange for greater accountability for results. The act provided authority to the 

Departments Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, along with the Corporation 

for National and Community Service, and the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, to 

enter into a total of up to 10 Performance Partnership Agreements with States, local 

governments, or Tribes to provide these entities additional flexibility in using certain 

discretionary funds to achieve significant improvements in outcomes for disconnected youth. 

The 2015 appropriations act expanded the authority to include certain 2015 discretionary 

funds in the first cohort of pilots, add a new cohort of up to 10 pilots, and make eligible for 

inclusion in a pilot certain Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Program funds. For 

2016, the Administration is requesting to continue the program. 

Through the development of the Performance Partnership Pilots initiative, we have learned 

about the challenges that States and communities face in serving disconnected youth and 

the cross-cutting needs that Federal agencies can help address. The Department would 

use the funds provided in FIE to address those needs. For example, through discussions 

with grantees and other stakeholders, the agencies have previously identified issues such 

as (1) our limited knowledge of which program models are most effective in helping 

G-89
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fund for the improvement of education: programs of national significance

disconnected youth achieve positive outcomes; (2) a relative lack of attention to this 

population at the Federal, State, and local levels; and (3) the need for more comprehensive 

approaches to meeting the multi-faceted needs of youth who may have educational deficits, 

unstable housing, health challenges, and histories of involvement with the criminal justice 

system. 

• $5 million for a Youth Data Pilot that would enhance communities’ tracking of and 

performance on multiple outcomes for at-risk youth using existing data sets. The goal of this 

initiative is to support communities that seek to gain a comprehensive picture of the 

progress of their youth towards healthy, productive lives by looking across multiple data 

sources at a variety of outcomes, such as high school attendance and graduation rates, 

postsecondary enrollment and credentials, employment, incarceration rates, birth outcomes, 

and shelter stays. Relevant activities include establishing common indicators of youth 

success, integrating administrative data sources, and developing easy-to-understand 

scorecards to help drive decision making. Policymakers, community leaders, and other 

stakeholders would use Such tools can help policymakers, community leaders, and other 

stakeholders improve or reassess a community’s service delivery models and redirect 

resources into the most effective strategies and programs.

Funds would support this work by providing demonstration grants to school districts with 

Early Warning Indicator Systems (EWIS) to enhance existing EWISs to enable linkages to 

child welfare data or other relevant data systems to provide more, actionable, data on at-risk 

youth. EWISs have been shown to improve credit completion and reduce dropout rates.1

 

Schools and school districts use EWISs to pursue similar goals as described above—using 

all available data to identify problem areas and challenges that need intervention—but 

typically only in the context of the school. However, some of the challenges that enhance 

the risk of students dropping out of school occur outside of school, as do some of the 

resources that can improve a student’s chance of graduating. Youth Data Pilot grants would 

improve the information schools have to identify their students most at risk of dropping out of 

school, and create important partnerships with the other systems that interact with at-risk 

students to keep them in school. The Department of Education will work closely with the 

Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Justice on planning and 

implementing this cross-sector initiative.

• $1.3 million to continue the Data Quality Initiative (DQI), which is designed to improve the 

quality, analysis, and reporting of the Department’s elementary and secondary program 

performance data. The DQI contractor provides Department program office staff with 

guidance on how to structure grant competitions so as to encourage grantees to plan for 

and collect high-quality program performance and evaluation data; provides technical 

assistance to grantees as they collect the data; and provides assistance to program offices 

and program analysis staff to improve the quality of data analysis.

• $10 million for continuation awards under Full-Service Community Schools to provide 

comprehensive academic, social, and health services for students, students’ family 

1 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/WWC_Check_Connect_092106.pdf

G-90

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fund for the improvement of education: programs of national significance

members, and community members that will result in improved educational outcomes for 

children.

• $9.7 million for continuation awards under Javits Gifted and Talented Education, including 

for the National Research Center for the Education of Gifted and Talented Children and 

Youth.

• $1.0 million for a new award under Education Facilities Clearinghouse to provide technical 

assistance and training on the planning, design, financing, procurement, construction, 

improvement, operation, and maintenance of safe, healthy, and high- performance public 

facilities for early learning programs, kindergarten through grade 12, and higher education. 

This request assumes the enactment of appropriations language similar to that enacted in 

2014 and 2015, to allow the Clearinghouse funded in 2016 to collect and disseminate 

information on these topics for early learning and higher education facilities. (Absent such 

appropriations language the Clearinghouse would be limited to carrying out the above 

activities solely with regard to elementary and secondary education facilities, because the 

FIE authorizing statute, itself, is limited in scope to elementary and secondary education.)

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Full-Service Community Schools grants:

2010 grantees (11 awards) $5,344 0 0

2014 grantees 5,305 $4,120 $4,384

2015 grantees 0 5,880 5,616

Subtotal 10,649 10,000 10,000

Non-Cognitive Initiative 0 2,000 10,000

Disconnected Youth Initiative 0 0 5,000

Youth Data Pilot 0 0 5,000

Innovative Approaches to Literacy 24,528 24,786 0

Data Quality Initiative 1,189 0 1,276

Education Facilities Clearinghouse 983 994 1,000

Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education 5,027 10,000 9,650

Other 0 220 0

Total 42,376 48,000 41,926

_________________

NOTE: The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The fiscal year 2015 

appropriations act provided the same authority and the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget would continue this 

authority. While the Department did not reserve funds from the Fund for the Improvement of Education: Programs of 

National Significance under this authority in fiscal year 2014, it may do so in fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

G-91
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fund for the improvement of education: programs of national significance

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act contains specific accountability provisions for FIE 

grantees. Each application for funds must include clear objectives for the project that are based 

on scientifically-based research and must describe the activities to be carried out to meet those 

objectives. In addition, recipients must evaluate the effectiveness of their funded programs and 

submit evaluations to the Department. The Department has not established general 

performance measures for the program, but does establish measures for specific grant 

competitions and monitors the progress of the grantees against these measures.

• For the Education Facilities Clearinghouse, the performance measure is the percentage of 

recipients of clearinghouse onsite training or technical assistance that implement one or 

more changes to improve their education facility based upon clearinghouse 

recommendations within 6 months of the training or technical assistance. Baseline data 

(corresponding to the 2011–2012 performance period for the Clearinghouse grantee) 

include: 62.5 percent of recipients of clearinghouse onsite training or technical assistance 

implemented one or more changes to improve their education facility based on

clearinghouse recommendations within 6 months of the training or technical assistance 

(with all 8 schools served reporting). More specifically, 100 percent (2 out of 2) of recipients 

of clearinghouse onsite training met this measure, and 50 percent (3 out of 6) recipients of 

clearinghouse technical assistance met this measure, for a total of 5 out of 8 (62.5 percent) 

that met the measure and 3 that did not.

In comparison, data for the subsequent (2012–2013) performance period are as follows:

67 percent of recipients of clearinghouse onsite training or technical assistance 

implemented one or more changes to improve their education facility based on 

clearinghouse recommendations within 6 months of the training or technical assistance (with 

3 of the 21 schools served not reporting). More specifically, 57 percent (8 out of 14, with 

3 not reporting) of recipients of clearinghouse onsite training met this measure, and 

86 percent (6 out of 7 with 0 not reporting) recipients of clearinghouse technical assistance 

met this measure, for a total of 14 out of 21 (67 percent) that met the measure, 7 that did 

not, and 3 not reporting. Across these two years these data reflect both an increase in the 

provision of onsite training or technical assistance by the grantee (from 8 recipients of such 

services in 2011–2012 to 21 in 2012–2013), and an increase in the proportion of those 

recipients of technical assistance that met the GPRA measure (from 62.5 percent to 

67 percent).

• For Full-Service Community Schools, the measure is the percentage of individuals targeted 

for services who receive services during each year of the project period. All grantees must 

submit an annual performance report documenting their contribution in assisting the 

Department in measuring the performance of the program against this indicator, as well as 

performance on project-specific indicators. In 2008, 96.3 percent of targeted individuals 

received services. In 2009, 100 percent of targeted individuals received services. In 2010, 

98 percent of targeted individuals for the 2008 cohort received services; 100 percent of 

targeted individuals for the 2010 cohort received services. In 2011, 91 percent of targeted 

individuals for the 2008 cohort received services; additionally, 84 percent of targeted 

G-92
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fund for the improvement of education: programs of national significance

individuals for the 2010 cohort received services in 2011. In 2011, some grantees served 

more than their targeted number of individuals.

• For the Innovative Approaches to Literacy initiative, the performance measures are: (1) the 

percentage of 4-year-old children participating in the project who achieve significant gains in 

oral language skills; (2) the percentage of participating 3rd grade students who meet or 

exceed proficiency on State reading or language arts assessments; (3) the percentage of 

participating 8th grade students who meet or exceed proficiency on State reading or 

language arts assessments; and (4) the percentage of participating high school students 

who meet or exceed proficiency on State reading or language arts assessments. The target 

for all grantees on all performance measures was 70 percent. In 2012, on Performance 

Measure 1, 52.4 percent of grantees met the target. On Performance Measures 2 through 

4, 18.2 percent of grantees, 38.5 percent of grantees, and 18.2 percent of grantees, 

respectively, met the target. Note that grantees were only required to report on measures 

applicable to the populations served, and, therefore, not all grantees reported on each 

performance measure.

• For Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education, the Department has established three 

measures focusing on the quality of project designs, professional development, and 

academic achievement of targeted student populations. The Department reports data for 

these measures twice over the grant period (at the middle and end of the period) after 

convening an expert panel of scientists and practitioners to review information from a 

sample of annual performance reports and self-evaluations prepared by grantees. The first 

data reports for the 2014 and 2015 cohorts will be provided in future years.

G-93
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Leveraging what works

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

0 $100,000 +$100,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Federal education formula grant programs, including those authorized by the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), are 

a significant source of funding to build State and local capacity to meet the educational needs of 

all students, including low-achieving students, students from low-income families, students with 

disabilities, and English Learners. These funds fulfill a critical function, and it is important that 

they be used in a way that reflects the best evidence about how to improve outcomes, 

consistent with the ESEA’s emphasis on the use of effective methods and instructional 

strategies that reflect scientifically based research. In the past, the evidence base for proven 

interventions has been very limited. But the Department and external research organizations 

have steadily expanded our understanding of which interventions and activities are effective and 

which are ineffective, through efforts such as the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), evidencebuilding programs like Investing in Innovation (i3), results-oriented philanthropy, and research 

rooted in universities and communities. These efforts have generated dozens of examples of 

useful interventions that can and should be supported with Federal formula funds. However, 

because of the difficulties with altering established practices, the adoption of evidence-based 

approaches is not always as rapid or complete as it could be.

The Leveraging What Works program would make competitive awards to incentivize local 

educational agencies (LEAs) to rethink their use of Federal formula grant funds, in combination 

with State and local resources, to support the innovative use of evidence-based strategies to 

improve student outcomes while maintaining the funds’ focus on serving high-need students. 

To receive an award, LEAs would commit to use a substantial portion of existing Federal 

formula funds, in combination with Leveraging What Works grant funds, for activities for which 

there is moderate or strong evidence of effectiveness, based on the standards in the Education 

Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). Applicants also would agree to 

annually report on per-pupil expenditures and student outcomes in a manner that supports the 

calculation of return on investment (ROI) for selected interventions.

G-94
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Leveraging what works 

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $100 million in fiscal year 2016 for a Leveraging What Works pilot 

that would make competitive grants for up to 10 LEAs that agree to use a portion of their 

Federal formula grant funds, in combination with State and local resources, to implement 

evidence-based interventions that address local needs. The wider adoption of such practices 

will help provide the lowest achieving students with the academic support and other services 

they need to reach challenging State-determined college- and career-ready academic 

standards.

To participate in the pilot, an applicant would submit a high-quality plan, including a description 

of how it would:

• Use a substantial portion of Federal formula grant funds, in addition to a Leveraging What 

Works award and State and local resources, to implement with fidelity strategies and 

interventions for improving student achievement, teacher professional practice, and other 

outcomes; 

• Track and publicly report on per-pupil expenditures and student outcomes;

• Use evaluation and performance data to drive continuous improvement and scaling of 

successful strategies and interventions. 

The Department would fund applicants proposing to significantly increase their use of Federal 

formula grant funds to implement strategies or interventions for which there is strong or 

moderate evidence of effectiveness, based on the standards in the Education Department 

General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures

2016

Amount for new awards $99,000

Number of new awards 5–10

Peer review $1,000

Total $100,000 _______________

NOTE: The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The fiscal year 2015 

appropriations act provided the same authority and the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget would continue this 

authority. The Teacher Principal Pathways program would be authorized by the ESEA; the Department may reserve 

funds from this program under the pooled evaluation authority in fiscal year 2016.

G-95
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Leveraging what works 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department will develop performance measures for the Leveraging What Works pilot 

program. At a minimum, these measures will track per pupil expenditures and student 

outcomes by student subgroup at the school level. The Department will also fund evaluations to 

determine, in scientifically valid ways, whether the funded interventions improve student 

achievement.

G-96
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 15)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

Period of Fund Availability 

2015 2016 Change 

$25,000 $25,000 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorization is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Arts in Education program supports national demonstration and Federal leadership 

activities to encourage the integration of the arts into the school curriculum. Allowable activities 

include: (1) research on arts education; (2) development and dissemination of information 

about model school-based arts education programs; (3) development of model State arts 

education assessments based on State academic achievement standards; (4) development and 

implementation of curriculum frameworks in the arts; (5) development of model professional 

development programs in the arts for teachers and administrators; (6) support of collaborative 

activities with Federal agencies or institutions involved in arts education, arts educators, and 

organizations representing the arts, including State and local arts agencies involved in art 

education; and (7) support of model projects and programs to integrate arts education into the 

regular elementary school and secondary school curriculum. 

The Department supports a number of arts education activities through grants to local 

educational agencies (LEAs), State educational agencies (SEAs), nonprofit organizations, 

institutions of higher education, organizations with expertise in the arts, and partnerships of 

these entities. Model Development and Dissemination grants support the development, 

documentation, evaluation, and dissemination of innovative models that seek to integrate and 

strengthen arts instruction in elementary and middle schools and improve students’ academic 

performance and achievement in the arts. Professional Development for Arts Education grants 

support the development of professional development programs for music, dance, drama, and 

visual arts educators. 

Beginning with the fiscal year 2011 appropriation, the Department initiated a new National Arts 

in Education competition to make grants to one or more national nonprofit arts organizations to 

carry out high-quality arts education programs for children and youth, with particular emphasis 

on serving students from low-income families and students with disabilities. The Department 

conducted a second competition in fiscal year 2012.

G-97
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2011........................................................$27,447

2012..........................................................24,953

2013..........................................................23,648

2014..........................................................25,000

2015..........................................................25,000

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $25.0 million for the Arts in Education program for fiscal year 

2016, the same as the 2015 level. The Administration’s request would provide $6.7 million for 

the Arts in Education National Program, $12.0 million for the Model Arts program, and 

$5.8 million for the Professional Development for Arts Educators program. Nearly all funds 

requested for fiscal year 2016 would be used to pay continuation costs for awards made in prior 

years.

Instruction and involvement in the arts, including the visual arts, music, dance, theater, and the 

media arts, are widely recognized as vital to a well-rounded education and may contribute to 

improved student achievement and success for all students. Federal and State education 

policies have recognized the value of arts. At the Federal level, the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA) includes art as one of the 10 core academic subjects of public education. 

Similarly, at the State level, 45 States have arts instructional requirements for elementary 

school, 50 have arts education standards, and 42 have arts requirements for high school 

graduation. However, only 27 States have defined arts as a core academic subject. A 

2009 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), titled Access to Arts Education, 

found that nearly 90 percent of elementary school teachers reported no change in the amount of 

time spent on arts instruction between school years 2004–2005 and 2006–2007. However, the 

report also noted that teachers in schools identified as in need of improvement and those with 

high percentages of minority students were more likely to report a reduction in time spend on 

the arts, which suggests that State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and 

nonprofit organizations may need to target arts funding more effectively toward serving students 

in those schools.

The Administration’s request would support State and local efforts to improve and expand arts 

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

implementation of high-quality, cohesive, and innovative strategies for art instruction. For 

example, the Professional Development for Arts Educators (PDAE) program focuses exclusively 

on providing high-quality professional development programs in music, dance, media and visual 

arts, and drama for art teachers in high-poverty schools. The Arts in Education Model 

Development and Dissemination (AEMDD) program also addresses the needs of low-income 

children by supporting the development and expansion of research-based models that integrate 

the arts into the curricula of elementary and middle schools in which 35 percent or more of the 

children enrolled are from low-income families. 

G-98
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

National Demonstration and Leadership Activities

Model Arts Program

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Total funds available $11,423 $11,995 $11,767

Amount for new awards $8,471 0 0

Number of new awards 18 0 0

Amount for continuation 

awards $2,477 $11,605 $11,417

Number of continuation 

awards 8 26 26

Interagency transfer to 

support the Arts 

Education Partnership $350 $350 $350

Peer review of new award 

applications $125 0 0

Professional Development for Arts Educators

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Total funds available $6,391 $5,859 $6,047

Amount for new awards $5,062 $409 $188

Number of new awards 17 1 1

Amount for continuation 

awards $1,229 $5,450 $5,859

Number of continuation 

awards 5 17 18

Peer review of new award 

applications $100 01 02

G-99
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

National Arts in Education Program

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Total funds available $6,700 $6,700 $6,700

Amount for new awards 0 $6,700

Number of new awards 0 1

Amount for continuation 

awards $6,700 0 $6,700

Number of continuation 

awards 1 0 1

Evaluation $486 $486 3 $486 3

_________________________

1 The Department would fund new applications in FY 2015 from the FY 2014 slate. 2 The Department would fund new applications in FY 2016 from the FY 2014 slate. 3 The fiscal year 2015 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved under 

section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The Administration’s 

fiscal year 2016 budget would continue this authority. Some or all of the funds that may be reserved from the Arts in 

Education program under section 9601 may be used under the ESEA pooled evaluation authority in fiscal years 2015 

and 2016.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To help ensure that all program participants meet challenging State academic 

content standards in the arts.

Objective: Activities supported with Federal funds will improve the quality of standards-based 

arts education for all participants.

G-100
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

Measure: The percentage of teachers participating in the Professional Development for Arts 

Educators program who receive professional development that is sustained and intensive.

Year Target Actual

2011 30% 27%

2012 35 84

2013 40 84

2014 45

2015 50

2016 55

In 2011, the Department defined sustained and intensive professional development for the 

PDAE program as completion of 40 or more of the professional development hours offered by 

the PDAE-funded project during the reporting period; completion of 75 percent of the total 

number of professional development hours offered by the PDAE-funded project during the 

reporting period; and completion of these professional development hours over at least a

6-month period during the reporting period. 

Measure: The percentage of PDAE projects in which teachers show a statistically significant 

increase in content knowledge in the arts.

Year Target Actual

2011 100.0% 100.0%

2012 100.0 100.0

2013 100.0 100.0

2014 100.0

2015 100.0

2016 100.0

Additional Information: The Department requires that grantees administer a pre-test and a 

post-test of teacher content knowledge in the arts and include those data in their annual 

performance reports.

Measure: The percentage of students participating in Model Arts programs who demonstrate 

proficiency in mathematics compared to those in control or comparison groups.

Year Treatment Control

2011 53.7% 48.4%

2012 64.0 55.0

2013 54.0 45.0

2014

2015

2016

G-101
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

Measure: The percentage of students participating in Model Arts programs who demonstrate 

proficiency in reading compared to those in control or comparison groups.

Year Treatment Control

2011 47.7% 42.2%

2012 57.0 43.0

2013 46.0 39.0

2014

2015

2016

Additional Information: The Department expects to have finalized 2014 performance data for 

both the reading and math measures, representing school year 2013–2014, available in fall 

2015.

The Department developed four measures for the Arts in Education National Program (AENP). 

These measures are: (1) the total number of students who participate in standards-based arts 

education sponsored by the grantee; (2) the percent of teachers participating in the grantee's 

program who receive professional development that is sustained and intensive; (3) the total 

number of students from low-income families who participate in standards-based arts education 

sponsored by the grantee; and (4) the total number of students with disabilities who participate 

in standards-based arts education sponsored by the grantee. In 2013, on performance 

measure 1, the grantee targeted 697,632 students for participation; 1,006,004 students actually 

participated in standards-based arts education sponsored by the grantee. On performance 

measure 2, the grantee’s target was 22.0 percent; 20.3 percent of teachers participating in the 

grantee’s program received professional development that was sustained and intensive. On 

performance measure 3, the grantee targeted 244,845 students from low-income families and

served 519,110. On performance measure 4, the grantee targeted 86,397 students with 

disabilities and served 257,512 students.

G-102
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Next generation high schools

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

PP2015 2016 Change

$0 $125,000 +$125,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The proposed Next Generation High Schools program would promote the whole school 

redesign of the high school experience through competitive grants to local educational agencies 

(LEAs) and their partners. The program would support innovative models that personalize 

teaching and learning for students and provide the rigorous and relevant education needed to 

prepare them for postsecondary learning and careers in the 21st century economy. The 

program would focus particularly on school models that are designed to engage and expand 

opportunities for girls and other groups underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Grantee activities would include one or more of the following: (1) redesigning academic content 

and instructional practices to better align them with postsecondary education and careers; 

(2) personalizing learning opportunities to support the educational needs and interests of 

individual students; (3) ensuring strong content knowledge and skills for teachers in all subjects, 

including STEM; (4) providing academic and wrap-around support services for those students 

who need them; (5) providing high-quality career and college exploration and counseling on 

options for students after high school graduation; (6) offering multiple opportunities to earn 

postsecondary credit while still in high school; and (7) strategically using learning time in more 

meaningful ways, such as through technology, redesigning the school day or calendar, or 

through competency-based progression.

Funds would support competitive grants to LEAs in partnership with institutions of higher 

education and entities such as nonprofit or community-based organizations, government 

agencies, and business or industry-related organizations that can help structure and facilitate 

career-related experiences as well as help schools prepare students to apply academic 

concepts to real-world challenges. Grantees would also be required to leverage existing 

Federal, State, and local resources to implement their projects. Priority for grants would be 

given to projects supported by at least moderate evidence of effectiveness as defined in 

Department regulations. Special consideration would be given to projects that: (1) are 

designed to improve readiness for postsecondary education and careers in STEM fields, 

particularly for student groups historically underrepresented in those fields; (2) serve areas with 

limited access to high-quality college and career opportunities such as high-poverty or rural 

G-103
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Next generation high schools

LEAs; or (3) include partnerships with employers that help students attain career-related 

credentials.

The Department would set aside one-half of 1 percent of the total appropriation for the Bureau 

of Indian Education (BIE) for activities consistent with the purposes of the program. The 

Department would also reserve up to 2.5 percent of the appropriated funds for national 

activities, including research, development, demonstration, dissemination, technical assistance, 

and evaluation.

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2016, the Administration requests $125 million for a new Next Generation High 

Schools program that would promote the whole school redesign of high schools through 

competitive grants to LEAs in partnership with institutions of higher education and other entities 

so that students graduate from high school with the academic foundation and career-related 

skills they need to be successful, including strong preparation in STEM subjects. 

In particular, the new program would ensure that all students in redesigned high schools 

participate in project- or problem-based learning and have the opportunity to graduate with:

• College credit, earned through dual enrollment, Advanced Placement or International 

Baccalaureate courses, or other postsecondary learning opportunities; and 

• Career-related experiences or competencies, obtained through organized internships 

and mentorships, structured work-based learning, and other related experiences.

Accomplishing these goals will help improve longer term outcomes for high school students, 

including increased high school graduation rates, higher rates of enrollment in postsecondary 

studies without the need to take remedial courses, higher postsecondary completion rates, and 

higher rates of completion of industry-recognized credentials and certifications. Graduates also 

are more likely to enjoy higher rates of employment and earn higher salaries due to their 

stronger college and career preparation.

Improving our high schools is a critical step for ensuring that our Nation remains competitive in 

today’s global economy. Today’s high school students are tomorrow’s engineers, 

entrepreneurs, and civic leaders who must be critical thinkers and able to find solutions to 

complex and emerging challenges. High schools must provide them with a rigorous, engaging, 

and relevant education that prepares them to meet the demands of college and careers. 

The Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University projects that, by 2020, 

nearly two-thirds of job openings will require some postsecondary education, and about 

30 percent of job openings will require at least a certificate or associate’s degree. In blue collar 

occupations, about 31 percent of jobs will require some postsecondary education and training 

by 2020 (“Recovery: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements through 2020.” 

Georgetown University, 2013). According to a similar analysis, in STEM fields, in particular, 

more than 90 percent of STEM workers will need at least some postsecondary education (“Help 

G-104
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Next generation high schools

Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements through 2018.” Georgetown 

University, 2010).

Unfortunately, too many high school graduates are not prepared to succeed in college. 

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 20 percent of first-year 

undergraduate students enrolled in institutions of higher education during the 2007–08 

academic year reported taking remedial courses (see 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013013.pdf). These data suggest that too many of America’s 

existing high schools fail to engage, motivate, or adequately support and prepare students or to 

provide exposure to the relevant learning that bridges their classroom learning with future 

college experiences and careers. The Administration’s Next Generation High Schools proposal 

would address these concerns by promoting reforms based on evidence that students learn 

best when they are engaged in complex projects and tasks aligned with their interests, and 

when they work with others through practical examples and case studies that keep them 

engaged in rigorous academic coursework and in the application of knowledge.

Grantees would be expected to incorporate strategies that engage students in learning 

opportunities tied to real world experience (such as work-based learning) and also provide 

students with rigorous, challenging academic content aligned with college-level expectations, 

including programs that allow students to gain postsecondary credit while still in high school. 

These experiences would help students develop not only academic content and cognitive 

competencies (such as critical thinking, solving complex and non-routine problems, and 

evaluating arguments on the basis of evidence), but also pertinent employability skills (including 

interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies, such as conscientiousness and persistence) that 

have been shown to have consistent positive correlations with desirable educational and career 

outcomes (“Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 

21st Century”, National Research Council (NRC), 2012). In addition, projects would be expected 

to incorporate meaningful career exploration opportunities and high-quality college and career 

advisory services to help students plan for the pathway they need to follow to learn the skills 

and attain the credentials they need to enter their chosen careers. 

Grantees would use program funds to leverage other existing Federal, State, and local funds, 

including through the development of partnerships with business, industry, public or private 

nonprofit organizations, and community-based organizations. A key goal of such partnerships 

would be to ensure that career-related activities are aligned with real world expectations and 

with institutions of higher education, and to ensure alignment between secondary and 

postsecondary content and expectations.

The Department would particularly encourage applicants for Next Generation High Schools

funding to propose projects that connect with relevant industry and community partners and 

increase engagement by underrepresented students in STEM fields, including girls, minorities, 

and students who will be the first in their families to attend college. Such strategies would 

replicate and expand efforts recommended in a 2011 NRC report (“Successful K-12 STEM 

Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics”) and successfully underway in parts of the country to offer inclusive STEMfocused high school experiences. For example, a June 2014 report from researchers at George 

Washington University, George Mason University, and SRI International found that students 

G-105
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Next generation high schools

attending Gary and Jerri-Ann Jacobs High Tech High School in San Diego, CA, an early college 

high school that provides a rigorous STEM-focused curriculum to concentrations of minority and 

first-generation college-going students, outperformed their district and State peers on the SAT 

and ACT (“Gary and Jerri-Ann Jacobs High Tech High: A case study of an inclusive STEMfocused high school in San Diego, California”). At Manor New Technology High School in 

Texas, another inclusive STEM-focused school, the same researchers found college enrollment 

rates that were significantly above the national average, with 74 percent of the school’s 2010 

graduating class enrolling in an institution of higher education compared to a 2010 national 

average enrollment rate of 41 percent (“Manor New Tech High School: A case study of an

inclusive STEM-focused high school in Manor, Texas,” 2013).

The Next Generation High Schools program expands on the congressionally required priority for 

comprehensive high school reforms in the Department’s fiscal year 2015 competition for grants 

under Investing in Innovation. The program would also complement Administration efforts to 

reform career and technical education as outlined in its 2012 blueprint for reauthorizing the 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, and is aligned with the 2016 proposal for an 

American Technical Training Fund within the CTE Innovation Fund, which would create stronger 

links between secondary education, postsecondary education, and the employment needs of indemand industries. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2016

Amount for new awards $120,000

Range of awards $4,000–$12,000

Average award $6,000

Number of new awards 10–30

Number of schools supported 40–80

Peer review of new award 

applications $1,250

BIE $625

National activities $3,125 _______________

NOTE: The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The fiscal year 2015 

appropriations act provided the same authority and the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget would continue this 

authority. The Next Generation High Schools program would be authorized by the ESEA; the Department may 

reserve funds from this program under the pooled evaluation authority in fiscal year 2016.

G-106
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Next generation high schools

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

activities that receive support under this program. The development of these measures would 

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

Department would also seek to align program measures for Next Generation High Schools with 

measures for related programs.

G-107
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teaching for tomorrow

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

2015 2016 Change

0 $1,000,000 +$1,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

America has made measurable progress towards expanding educational opportunity and 

closing achievement gaps due in large part to our hard-working teachers who are dedicated to 

helping every child succeed. However, we must do more to support our teachers so that every 

child has the opportunity to receive a high-quality education. Of all the school-related factors 

that impact student academic performance, great teachers matter most. Research suggests 

that improving teacher recruitment and selection, career advancement, and supports can 

improve outcomes, particularly for the most vulnerable children.

Under the Teaching for Tomorrow (TFT) program, the Department would make competitive 

grants to support States and districts that transform the ways they recruit and prepare new 

teachers and support teachers in the classroom. States would use program funds to transform

teacher recruitment, selection, preparation, certification, and early career supports. The TFT

program would also assist States and districts in increasing the retention of excellent teachers 

and implementing innovative, evidence-based models for induction, mentoring, evaluation, 

support, compensation, and career advancement to improve teacher performance and increase 

access to effective teachers for all students. Program funds would also support rigorous project 

evaluations.

The Department would reserve up to 1 percent of TFT funds to provide technical assistance and 

share best practices on recruitment, selection, and preparation, as well as career advancement 

and supports.

The Administration’s budget request includes a set of initiatives to help States, districts, 

institutions of higher education, and other partners address each phase of a teacher’s 

preparation and career in order to improve student achievement and ensure access to a highquality education for all students. The TFT proposal builds on existing programs, such as 

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, and complements other proposed programs like 

Teacher and Principal Pathways and Excellent Educators Grants (currently the Teacher 

Incentive Fund).

G-108
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teaching for tomorrow

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration proposes $1 billion per year for 5 years in mandatory funding for the TFT

program to transform recruitment, selection, and preparation of new teachers and dramatically 

increase support for teachers already in the profession.

Research shows that having a great teacher can matter more for students’ academic 

performance than any other school-related factor.1

 As a Nation, we need to do more to make 

sure that teachers are well-prepared when they enter the profession and are well-supported 

when they are in front of a classroom. Teachers face fresh challenges as their schools 

transition to new standards, new assessments, and new evaluations systems, and we must do 

all we can to equip teachers with the skills and tools they need to be successful.

The Obama Administration has supported many measures designed to help schools promote 

teacher effectiveness, particularly in schools serving children with greatest needs. These 

measures include encouraging the use of teacher and principal evaluation and support systems 

through Race to the Top (RTT) and ESEA flexibility; promoting the expansion of alternative 

approaches to compensation, promotion, support and retention of teachers through RTT and 

the proposed Excellent Educators Grants; asking States and institutions to focus on meaningful 

outcomes when measuring performance of teacher preparation programs through the newly 

proposed teacher preparation regulation as a way to help programs improve how they prepare 

teachers for the demands of the classroom; and requiring States to develop new plans to 

expand access to excellent educators. 

While these are important steps, even greater changes are needed. Fundamental changes in 

the preparation and support of teachers can result in significant improvements in student 

outcomes. Some programs have emphasized more rigorous teacher preparation, giving 

prospective teachers more practical training. Other places have focused on supporting teachers 

in the classroom by providing training that is tailored to the needs of individual teachers and 

finding new ways to recognize the complicated work and specialized skills demanded of them. 

Under the TFT program, the Department would make competitive grants to: (1) States that

propose innovative changes in the ways they recruit, select, and prepare new teachers, drawing 

on lessons from Finland, Singapore, and elsewhere; (2) States and districts that choose a bold, 

comprehensive approach to supporting teachers who remain in the profession, such as by

reforming evaluation, support, compensation, and retention systems, drawing on lessons from 

the District of Columbia and elsewhere; and (3) States and districts that propose to implement 

other innovative models designed to dramatically improve teacher and principal performance 

and increase access to effective teachers for all students.2

 In all cases, the Department would 

also support rigorous evaluations of the impact of the new investments.

1 RAND Corporation, “Teachers Matter: Understanding Teachers’ Impact on Student Achievement” 

(2012). 2 For more information on the Department’s evidence standards, see 34 C.F.R. § 77.1(c); Institute of 

Education Sciences, “What Works Clearinghouse: Procedures and Standards Handbook” (Version 3.0, 

2014).

G-109

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teaching for tomorrow

Preparing for success: Improving recruitment, selection, and preparation

International best practices show that improving teacher preparation—focusing on recruiting 

high-quality candidates and making preparation more selective, practical, and rigorous—can

increase the number of talented new teachers entering the classroom and promote gains in 

teacher effectiveness. These practices can be adapted appropriately to contexts in the United 

States.3

For example, Finland’s highly selective and high-quality teacher education system has helped 

that country achieve top scores on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 

and reduce to a nominal amount the achievement gap between the best and worst Finnish 

schools. A 2011 OECD report, “Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: 

Lessons from PISA for the United States” explains that teacher education in Finland has at least 

four distinguishing qualities: (1) Teacher candidates familiarize themselves with the knowledge 

base in education and human development, as well as write a research-based dissertation; 

(2) there is a strong focus on developing pedagogical content knowledge; (3) education includes 

explicit training in diagnosing students with learning difficulties and then in adapting instruction 

to meet various needs; and (4) preparation provides a deep clinical component. Teacher 

candidates also observe lessons by experienced teachers, practice teaching observed by 

supervisory teachers, and deliver independent lessons to different groups of pupils while being 

evaluated by supervising teachers as well as professors and lecturers. 

Singapore has also demonstrated outstanding PISA results and achieved a high-quality teacher 

workforce. Singapore’s sole teacher training program recruits from among the best high school 

students in the country and is followed by a system of support from induction through 

retirement, including a reduced workload in the first year of teaching to allow for significant 

mentoring, coaching experiences, and career-long opportunities for recognition and 

advancement.

Under the TFT program, the Department would make competitive grants to States to support 

the transformation of their systems for teacher recruitment, selection, preparation, certification, 

and early career supports along the lines pioneered in Finland and Singapore. A key premise of 

these efforts would be an assessment of anticipated teaching needs over the next 10 years. 

Grantees—including States working with their schools of education—would then work to align 

the supply of new teachers to the estimated demand. 

TFT program funds would support innovative efforts to attract diverse, high-performing 

individuals into teaching, such as raising awareness of the importance and benefits of the 

teaching profession, targeted recruitment initiatives, honors and awards, the development of 

data systems for LEAs to better fill existing and future vacancies with promising applicants, and 

cross-sector partnerships. 

3 U.S. Department of Education, “Succeeding Globally Through International Education and 

Engagement: U.S. Department of Education International Strategy 2012–16” (2012); Reimers, et al., 

“Adapting Innovations Across Borders to Close Equity Gaps in Education,” in Heymann & Cassola (Eds.), 

“Lessons in Educational Equality: Successful Approaches to Intractable Problems around the World” 

(2011).

G-110

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teaching for tomorrow

Working with teacher preparation programs, grantees would raise admissions standards and

provide incentives to attract candidates from the top third of their graduating classes, accounting 

for both academic measures (such as GPA) or non-academic measures (such as leadership 

skills).

4

 Additionally, the TFT program would support stipends and scholarships to create 

incentives for prospective new teachers, helping increase and diversify the applicant pool to 

allow for greater competition and selectivity. 

Teacher preparation programs would also ensure a high level of rigor in required coursework 

and provide incentives for participants to complete joint degrees in subject matters and 

education to ensure teachers gain the high levels of content knowledge and pedagogical skills 

that they need to be successful in the classroom. In addition, programs would strengthen new

teachers’ instructional skills by including more classroom experience during their preparation, 

improved mentoring, and feedback from experienced teachers in the first year in the classroom, 

as well as more opportunities for collaborative planning with other teachers. 

Supporting success: Reforming evaluation, career advancement, and support systems

While many States and LEAs in the U.S. are incrementally implementing evaluation and support 

systems and introducing modest performance-based compensation plans and other activities 

designed to increase retention, some school systems have acted more aggressively and 

achieved significant improvements for teachers and students. For example, District of Columbia 

Public Schools (DCPS) has realized substantial gains from its IMPACT evaluation system and 

Leadership Initiative for Teachers (LIFT) system of differentiated compensation. DCPS has 

strengthened retention of high-quality teachers, contributing to significant gains in student 

achievement as well as large decreases in achievement gaps.

5

 In DCPS, teachers progress 

through a five-stage career ladder and high-performing teachers are provided opportunities for 

advancement inside the classroom, additional responsibility, and increased recognition and 

compensation. Eligible teachers are able to participate as curriculum writers, serve in policy 

fellowships, and even help recruit and select new teachers for the school system. Teachers 

with superior performance for multiple years accelerate up the pay scale, earning annual 

bonuses of up to $20,000 and base salary increases of up to $27,000, with highly effective 

teachers in the highest-poverty schools eligible to earn over $100,000 after just four years. 

These changes have improved retention of highly effective teachers while increasing the 

voluntary attrition of low-performing teachers.

TFT would support States and districts that choose a comprehensive, bold approach to 

supporting and retaining effective teachers that includes a fair and reliable teacher evaluation 

and support system that is developed in consultation with teachers. For example, grantees 

could restructure teacher compensation to ensure that factors other than years of experience 

and education credits—such as consistent high performance in high-need schools and teaching 

4 Auguste, Byron, et al., “Closing the Talent Gap: Attracting and Retaining Top-Third Graduates to 

Careers in Teaching: An International and Market Research-Based Perspective,” McKinsey & Company 

(2010). 5 Dee, Thomas & Wyckoff, James, “Incentives, Selection, and Teacher Performance: Evidence from 

IMPACT,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 19529 (2013); U.S. Department of 

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

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

G-111

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teaching for tomorrow

high-need students or subjects—lead to meaningful salary increases. Grantees would also be 

responsible for ensuring that teachers in need of improvement receive targeted support; that 

teachers who do not improve over an appropriate period of time (as determined by the grantee) 

are fairly dismissed; that earning tenure is a meaningful accomplishment earned, in the context 

of full due process, by teachers who consistently meet high expectations or show improvement; 

and that evaluation results are considered in layoff decisions, such as during budget cuts.

The TFT program would also support improvements in the quality of school leadership through 

the use of comprehensive and aligned evaluation, support, compensation, and retention

strategies, and increases in principal autonomy to hire and dismiss teachers. Strong 

organizational leadership is vital for schools to retain their strongest teachers during these 

reforms.6

 School leaders control many work environment elements that contribute to teachers’ 

satisfaction and mobility.7 Effective school leaders retain the best teachers by showing those 

teachers that they are valued and by freeing them to focus on student learning.8 

Innovative alternative models

In addition to initiatives following the two models outlined above, the Department would make 

competitive grant awards to States and districts that propose to implement comprehensive, 

innovative approaches to improving the performance of teachers or school leaders. Grantees 

would commit to increasing access to effective teachers for all students, consistent with the 

State’s plan to ensure that poor and minority children are taught by excellent educators under 

section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2016

Amount for new Preparing for Success awards $400,000

Number of new awards 5–10

Range of new awards $25,000–$100,000

Amount for new Supporting Success awards $400,000

Number of new awards 50–100

Range of new awards $5,000–$75,000

Amount for new Innovative Alternative Model awards $190,000

Number of new awards 5–10

Range of new awards $5,000–$75,000

6 Schleicher, Andreas (Ed.), “Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century: Lessons 

from around the World” (2012). 7 Johnson, Susan Moore, et al., “How Context Matters in High-Need Schools: The Effects of Teachers’ Working 

Conditions on their Professional Satisfaction and their Students’ Achievement,” Teachers College Record, 114, 10, 1-

39 (2012). 8 Ikemoto, Gina, et al., “Playmakers: How Great Principals Build and Lead Great Teams of Teachers,” New 

Leaders (2012).

G-112

 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teaching for tomorrow

Measures 2016

Technical assistance, training, outreach, and evaluation $10,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the TFT

program. The new goals and indicators would focus on measures concerning teacher 

recruitment, support, and retention. Grantees would also be required to conduct rigorous 

project evaluations. 

G-113