99–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 112–180 

STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING FLEXIBILITY ACT 

JULY 25, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. KLINE, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2445] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 2445) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide States and local educational agencies with maximum flexibility in using Federal funds 

provided under such Act, and for other purposes, having considered 

the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

The Act may be cited as the ‘‘State and Local Funding Flexibility Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FLEXIBILITY TO USE FEDERAL FUNDS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart 2 of part A of title VI of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7305 et seq.) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘Subpart 2—Funding Flexibility for State and Local 

Educational Agencies 

‘‘SEC. 6121. SHORT TITLE. 

‘‘This subpart may be cited as the ‘State and Local Funding Flexibility Act’. 

‘‘SEC. 6122. PURPOSE. 

‘‘The purpose of this subpart is to allow States and local educational agencies the 

flexibility to— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

‘‘(1) design flexible programs that use Federal funds to support student 

achievement for all students, including students most at risk of failing to meet 

the State’s academic achievement standards; and 

‘‘(2) extend and enhance the funding flexibility provided to rural local educational agencies under section 6211 to all State educational agencies and local 

educational agencies by providing such agencies flexibility in using Federal formula funds received to carry out authorized State or local activities for other 

authorized or required State or local activities. 

‘‘SEC. 6123. FLEXIBILITY TO USE FEDERAL FUNDS. 

‘‘(a) ALTERNATIVE USES OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (c) and (d) and notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, a State educational agency may use the applicable funding that the agency receives for a fiscal year to carry out any State activity authorized or required under one or more of the following provisions: 

‘‘(A) Section 1003. 

‘‘(B) Section 1004. 

‘‘(C) Subpart 1 of part B of title I. 

‘‘(D) Part C of title I. 

‘‘(E) Part D of title I. 

‘‘(F) Part A of title II. 

‘‘(G) Part B of title II. 

‘‘(H) Title III. 

‘‘(I) Part B of title IV. 

‘‘(J) Part A of title V. 

‘‘(K) Subpart 1 of part A of title VI. 

‘‘(L) Subpart 2 of part B of title VI. 

‘‘(M) Subpart 2 of part A of title VII. 

‘‘(2) NOTIFICATION.—Not later than June 1 of each year, a State educational 

agency shall notify the Secretary of the State educational agency’s intention to 

use the applicable funding for any of the alternative uses under paragraph (1). 

‘‘(3) APPLICABLE FUNDING DEFINED.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in this subsection, the term ‘applicable funding’ means funds provided to carry out 

State activities under one or more of the following provisions: 

‘‘(i) Section 1003(g)(2). 

‘‘(ii) Section 1004. 

‘‘(iii) Subpart I of Part B of title I. 

‘‘(iv) Part C of title I. 

‘‘(v) Part D of title I. 

‘‘(vi) Part A of title II. 

‘‘(vii) Part B of title II. 

‘‘(viii) Part A of title III. 

‘‘(ix) Part B of title IV. 

‘‘(x) Part A of title V. 

‘‘(xi) Title I of Public Law 111–226. 

‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—In this subsection, the term ‘applicable funding’ does 

not include funds provided under any of the provisions listed in subparagraph (A) that State educational agencies are required by this Act— 

‘‘(i) to reserve, allocate, or spend for required activities; 

‘‘(ii) to allot or award to local educational agencies or other entities 

eligible to receive such funds; or 

‘‘(iii) to use for technical assistance or monitoring. 

‘‘(4) DISBURSEMENT.—The Secretary shall disburse the applicable funding to 

State educational agencies for alternative uses under paragraph (1) for a fiscal 

year at the same time as the Secretary disburses the applicable funding to 

State educational agencies that do not intend to use the applicable funding for 

such alternative uses for the fiscal year. 

‘‘(b) ALTERNATIVE USES OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (c) and (d) and notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, a local educational agency may use the applicable funding that the agency receives for a fiscal year to carry out any local activity authorized or required under one or more of the following provisions: 

‘‘(A) Section 1003. 

‘‘(B) Part A of title I. 

‘‘(C) Subpart 1 of part B of title I. 

‘‘(D) Part C of title I. 

‘‘(E) Part D of title I. 

‘‘(F) Part A of title II. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

‘‘(G) Part B of title II. 

‘‘(H) Part A of title III. 

‘‘(I) Part B of title IV. 

‘‘(J) Part A of title V. 

‘‘(K) Subpart 2 of part B of title VI. 

‘‘(L) Part A of title VII. 

‘‘(M) Section 613(f) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 

U.S.C. 1413(f)). 

‘‘(2) NOTIFICATION.—A local educational agency shall notify the State educational agency of the local educational agency’s intention to use the applicable 

funding for any of the alternative uses under paragraph (1) by a date that is 

established by the State educational agency for the notification. 

‘‘(3) APPLICABLE FUNDING DEFINED.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in this subsection, the term ‘applicable funding’ means funds provided to carry out 

local activities under one or more of the following provisions: 

‘‘(i) Part A of title I. 

‘‘(ii) Part C of title I. 

‘‘(iii) Part D of title I. 

‘‘(iv) Part A of title II. 

‘‘(v) Part A of title III. 

‘‘(vi) Part A of title V. 

‘‘(vii) Part A of title VII. 

‘‘(viii) Title I of Public Law 111–226. 

‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—In this subsection, the term ‘applicable funding’ does 

not include funds provided under any of the provisions listed in subparagraph (A) that local educational agencies are required by this Act— 

‘‘(i) to reserve, allocate, or spend for required activities; 

‘‘(ii) to allot or award to entities eligible to receive such funds; or 

‘‘(iii) to use for technical assistance or monitoring. 

‘‘(4) DISBURSEMENT.—Each State educational agency that receives applicable 

funding for a fiscal year shall disburse the applicable funding to local educational agencies for alternative uses under paragraph (1) for the fiscal year at 

the same time as the State educational agency disburses the applicable funding 

to local educational agencies that do not intend to use the applicable funding 

for such alternative uses for the fiscal year. 

‘‘(c) RULE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—A State educational agency or a local educational agency may only use applicable funding (as defined in subsection (a)(3) or 

(b)(3), respectively) for administrative costs incurred in carrying out a provision listed in subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1), respectively, to the extent that the agency, in the 

absence of this section, could have used funds for administrative costs with respect 

to a program listed in subsection (a)(3) or (b)(3), respectively. 

‘‘(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve 

a State educational agency or local educational agency of any requirements relating 

to— 

‘‘(1) maintenance of effort; 

‘‘(2) use of Federal funds to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds; 

‘‘(3) comparability of services; 

‘‘(4) equitable participation of private school students and teachers; 

‘‘(5) applicable civil rights requirements; 

‘‘(6) the selection of school attendance areas or schools under subsections (a) 

and (b), and allocations to such areas or schools under subsection (c), of section 

1113; 

‘‘(7) section 1111; 

‘‘(8) section 1116; or 

‘‘(9) section 3122.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of contents of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is amended by striking the 

items relating to subpart 2 of part A of title VI and inserting the following: 

‘‘Subpart 2—Funding Flexibility for State and Local Educational Agencies 

‘‘Sec. 6121. Short title. 

‘‘Sec. 6122. Purpose. 

‘‘Sec. 6123. Flexibility to use Federal funds.’’. 

PURPOSE

H.R. 2445, the State and Local Funding Flexibility Act, amends 

Title VI, Part A, Subpart 2 of the Elementary and Secondary EduVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:27 Jul 27, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

cation Act to provide states and school districts with maximum 

flexibility to use federal education dollars on programs that best 

serve the needs of students. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

This bill is the third in a series designed to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). H.R. 2445 builds 

upon the Committee’s efforts to examine the federal investment in 

education and reduce federal control over elementary and secondary education programs. 

112TH CONGRESS

Hearings 

On February 10, 2011, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce held a hearing in Washington, DC, on ‘‘Education in the 

Nation: Examining the Challenges and Opportunities Facing America’s Classrooms.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to learn what 

challenges states face in developing a high-quality education system, explore innovative policies that are being proposed and implemented at the state and local level, and examine the federal investment in education and its limited effect on student achievement. 

Testifying before the Committee were: Dr. Tony Bennett, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Indiana Department of Education, 

Indianapolis, IN; Ms. Lisa Graham Keegan, Founder, Education 

Breakthrough Network, Phoenix, AZ; Mr. Andrew Coulson, Director, Center for Educational Freedom, CATO Institute, Seattle, WA; 

and Mr. Ted Mitchell, President and CEO, New Schools Venture 

Fund, San Francisco, CA. 

On March 1, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing in Washington, DC, on ‘‘Education Regulations: Weighing the Burden on Schools and Students.’’ The purpose 

of the hearing was to examine the burden of federal, state, and 

local regulations on the nation’s education system and learn whether these time consuming and duplicative requirements ultimately 

improve student achievement. Testifying before the Committee 

were: Mr. Gene Wilhoit, Executive Director, Council of Chief State 

School Officers, Washington, DC; Dr. Edgar Hatrick, Superintendent, Loudoun County Public Schools, Ashburn, VA; Mr. 

Christopher B. Nelson, President, St. John’s College, Annapolis, 

MD; and Ms. Kati Haycock, President, The Education Trust, Washington, DC. 

On March 9, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing in Washington, DC, on ‘‘The Budget and Policy 

Proposals of the U.S. Department of Education.’’ The purpose of the 

hearing was to discuss the Department’s budget request for Fiscal 

Year 2012. Testifying before the Committee was The Honorable 

Arne Duncan, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. 

On March 15, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, held a hearing in Washington, DC, on ‘‘Education Regulations: Burying Schools in Paperwork.’’ The purpose of 

the hearing was to hear from local officials representing elementary and secondary schools about the paperwork burden bureauVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:27 Jul 27, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

cratic regulations impose on their schools and school districts. Testifying before the Subcommittee were: Mr. Robert P. ‘‘Bob’’ 

Grimesey, Jr., Superintendent, Orange County Public Schools, Orange, VA; Mr. James Willcox, CEO, Aspire Public Schools, Oakland, CA; Ms. Jennifer A. Marshall, Director of Domestic Policy 

Studies, Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC; and Mr. Chuck 

Grable, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, Huntington 

County Community School Corporation, Huntington, IN. 

On April 7, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

held a hearing in Washington, DC, on ‘‘Education Reforms: Promoting Flexibility and Innovation.’’ The purpose of the hearing was 

to discuss the appropriate federal role in K–12 education and explore the work of state and local education leaders who are pushing 

for innovative approaches to education reform and greater state 

and local flexibility. Testifying before the Committee were: Dr. 

Janet Barresi, Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Oklahoma City, OK; Dr. Gary Amoroso, Superintendent, 

Lakeville Area Public Schools, Lakeville, MN; Mr. Yohance 

Maqubela, Chief Operating Officer, Howard University Middle 

School of Mathematics and Science, Washington, DC; and Dr. Terry 

Grier, Superintendent, Houston Independent School District, Houston, TX. 

Legislative action 

On July 7, 2011, Rep. John Kline (R–MN) introduced H.R. 2445, 

the State and Local Funding Flexibility Act. This bill strikes the 

State and Local Educational Agencies Funding Transferability program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and replaces it with a more flexible program allowing for improved use 

of federal education funds. H.R. 2445 is cosponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R–CA), Rep. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon (R–CA), Rep. 

Bob Goodlatte (R–VA), Rep. Phil Roe (R–TN), Rep. Glenn Thompson (R–PA), Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R–TN), Rep. Richard Hanna (R– 

NY), Rep. Larry Bucshon (R–IN), Rep. Lou Barletta (R–PA), Rep. 

Kristi Noem (R–SD), Rep. Martha Roby (R–AL), Rep. Joseph Heck 

(R–NV), Rep. Dennis Ross (R–FL), and Rep. Mike Kelly (R–PA). 

The Committee on Education and the Workforce considered H.R. 

2445 in legislative session on July 13, 2011, and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of Representatives by a vote of 23– 

17. The Committee considered and adopted the following amendment to H.R. 2445: 

• Rep. Glenn Thompson (R–PA) offered an Amendment in the 

Nature of a Substitute to make technical corrections to the legislation. The amendment also reiterates that states and school districts 

must comply with all civil rights requirements and school funding 

allocation requirements. The amendment was adopted by voice 

vote. 

The Committee further considered the following amendments to 

H.R. 2445, which were not adopted: 

• Rep. George Miller (D–CA) offered an amendment to prohibit 

Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) from using funds allocated for 

Title I, Part A, for any other purpose. The amendment failed by a 

vote of 17–23. 

• Rep. Raul Grijalva (D–AZ) offered an amendment to prohibit 

State Educational Agencies (SEAs) and LEAs from using funds alVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:27 Jul 27, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

located for English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, 

and Academic Achievement for any other purpose. The amendment 

failed by a vote of 17–23. • Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D–TX) offered an amendment to prohibit 

SEAs and LEAs from using funds allocated for the Education of 

Migratory Children for any other purpose. The amendment failed 

by a vote of 17–23. • Rep. Robert ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D–VA) offered an amendment to 

prohibit SEAs and LEAs from using funds allocated for the Education of Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk Children for any other 

purpose. The amendment failed by a vote of 17–23. • Rep. Dale Kildee (D–MI) offered an amendment to prohibit 

LEAs from using funds allocated for Indian Education for any 

other purpose. The amendment failed by a vote of 17–23. • Rep. Rush Holt (D–NJ) offered an amendment to add reporting 

requirements for SEAs and LEAs on how funds are used. The 

amendment failed by a vote of 17–23. 

The Committee received letters of support for H.R. 2445 from the 

American Association of School Administrators (AASA); the National School Boards Association (NSBA); and several local school 

superintendents across the country. 

SUMMARY

H.R. 2445, the State and Local Funding Flexibility Act, allows 

states and school districts to use certain funds received under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for additional activities authorized under the law. This provides state and local officials with greater control over their education decisions, eliminates 

bureaucratic red tape, and encourages local innovation to reform 

public education. 

The legislation defines the list of programs states and districts 

may use for an alternative purpose. 

States may use funds from: 

• School Improvement Grants (State Administration) • Aid for the Disadvantaged (State Administration) • Migrant Education • Neglected and Delinquent Programs • Teacher Quality State Grants • English Language Acquisition Grants • 21st Century Community Learning Centers • Education Jobs Fund 

School districts may use funds from: 

• Aid for the Disadvantaged • Migrant Education • Neglected and Delinquent Programs • Teacher Quality State Grants • English Language Acquisition Grants • Indian Education • Education Jobs Fund 

Activities for which the funds may be used include: 

• School Improvement Grants • Aid for the Disadvantaged (State Administration) (states only) • Aid for the Disadvantaged (school districts only) • Reading First • Migrant Education 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
7 

• Neglected and Delinquent Programs 

• Teacher Quality Grants 

• Math and Science Partnerships 

• English Language Acquisition Grants 

• 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

• Innovative Programs 

• Grants for State Assessments (states only) 

• Rural and Low-Income School Program 

• Indian Education 

• Early Intervening Services under Section 613(f) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (school districts only) 

Under the State and Local Funding Flexibility Act, if a state or 

school district receiving formula funds under the Teacher Quality 

State Grant program wanted to use those funds to purchase new 

computers or create a new literacy program for English Language 

Learners, it could do so unencumbered by federal spending requirements. The bill maintains monitoring, reporting, and accountability 

requirements for states and school districts under existing ESEA 

programs. This ensures states and school districts continue to focus 

on improving the academic achievement of special populations of 

students, including disadvantaged students, migrant students, atrisk students, and English Language Learners. 

The State and Local Funding Flexibility Act also includes a reasonable annual notification requirement. Under the bill, school districts will notify the state how they plan to use their federal funds 

and states will notify the Secretary of Education how they plan to 

use their federal funds. The bill does not require an application or 

approval process to utilize the flexibility. Further, the legislation 

ensures states and school districts intending to exercise funding 

flexibility will receive their allocations at the same time as those 

choosing not to utilize the authority, an assurance also included 

under the existing rural flexibility program. 

By maintaining a focus on student performance and enabling 

states and school districts to determine how best to deliver those 

results, the State and Local Funding Flexibility Act will help enhance our commitment to education by encouraging local innovation, restore state and local control of education, and reduce the 

federal role in public education. 

COMMITTEE VIEWS

Background 

The federal government currently operates a host of elementary 

and secondary education programs, each of which is governed by a 

separate set of eligibility requirements, reporting regulations, and 

strict rules dictating how federal funds may be spent. For example, 

if a local suburban elementary school wants to use Title I (Aid for 

the Disadvantaged) to create a literacy program targeted toward all 

3rd graders, it can only do so if it meets federal requirements to 

administer a school-wide program in which 40 percent or more of 

its students come from low-income families. Similarly, if a local 

school district has completed hiring all of its highly qualified teachers for the year and still has remaining Title II (Teacher Quality 

State Grants) dollars, it has no choice but to spend the funding on 

an activity authorized under that program irrespective of need or 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
8 

1 Congressional Research Service, ‘‘RL31583:K–12 Education: Special Forms of Flexibility in 

the Administration of Federal Aid Programs.’’ 2 U.S. Department of Education, State Flexibility Demonstration Program: http:// 

www2.ed.gov/programs/stateflex/awards.html. 3 U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Demonstration Program: http:// 

www2.ed.gov/programs/localflex/awards.html. 

other priorities. The Committee believes such siloed funding can severely limit states’ and school districts’ ability to apply federal 

funds toward local education priorities and innovative initiatives. 

Since passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA), which was last reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind 

(NCLB), states, local superintendents, and teachers have widely 

criticized the law as an excessive expansion of the federal government into public education and pushed back against its most burdensome requirements. The Committee has heard from numerous 

states and school districts that federal requirements surrounding 

how educators spend federal dollars are too restrictive. Under the 

current structure, each of the federal ESEA programs have contradictory funding and use conditions and varying eligibility requirements, thus limiting flexibility to local school districts. The 

Committee believes this heavy-handed approach empowers the federal government to dictate funding decisions of states and local 

school districts and inhibits their ability to foster innovation to improve public education. 

Current law includes a number of provisions that provide states 

and school districts with limited flexibility to tailor using federal 

dollars to support local priorities. The funding authorities include 

the following: 

• Transferability: States and school districts can transfer up to 

50 percent of their Teacher Quality Grants, Education Technology, 

21st Century Community Learning Centers, and Innovative Program dollars between programs and/or into the Title I program. 

States and school districts that are in ‘‘School Improvement,’’ ‘‘Corrective Action,’’ or ‘‘Restructuring’’ status are limited to transferring 30 percent of their funds between programs. Approximately 

12–16 percent of school districts take advantage of this flexibility 

option.1

• State-Flex Program: Up to seven states can apply to the Secretary of Education to consolidate all of its state administration 

and state activity funds. Currently, no states participate in the 

State-Flex program.2

• Local-Flex Program: Eighty school districts can apply to the 

Secretary of Education to consolidate all of their funds under 

Teacher Quality Grants, Education Technology, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and Innovative Program programs. Seattle is the only school district currently participating, and is doing 

so under a Department of Education waiver.3

• Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) Flex: The 

REAP Flex program allows eligible rural school districts flexibility 

in using funds for activities under a limited number of authorized 

ESEA programs. To participate in the program, an eligible school 

district simply must notify its state educational agency of its intent 

to do so by the notification deadline established by the state. More 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
9 

4 U.S. Department of Education, ‘‘Evaluation of Flexibility Under No Child Left Behind: Volume III—The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP Flex): http://www2.ed.gov/ 

rschstat/eval/disadv/flexibility/volIII-reap.pdf. 5 ‘‘The Nation’s Report Card: Long-Term Trend 2008.’’ April 28, 2009. 

6 U.S. Department of Education, ‘‘FY2010 Program Performance Reports/Special Education 

Grants To States,’’ p.7. http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2010report/program.html. 7 EPE Research Center, 2011. http://www.edweek.org/media/dc11- 

graduationintheunitedstates-2.pdf. 

than 4,000 districts nationwide are eligible, and more than 50 percent of those eligible districts use this flexibility option.4

Since these funding authorities were created by Congress in 

2001, states and school districts have criticized the Transferability, 

State Flex, and Local Flex Programs as overly complex and burdensome. For example, in most cases, the authority to consolidate 

funds is limited to a small number of federal programs, many of 

which have received little to no funding by Congress. This dramatically limits the ability of school districts to maximize their use of 

funds. The Secretary has the authority to take flexibility away 

from states and school districts if they are found to be noncompliant with the authority and can also impose penalties. The approval 

process and requirements of a number of the programs are onerous, 

thus limiting the number of states and school districts that want 

to take advantage of this funding flexibility. The Committee believes these funding authorities, while important, are overly complex and need to be restructured to provide true funding flexibility 

to state and school districts. 

Despite record increases in federal spending, academic achievement has not improved, and academic achievement gaps persist. 

According to the National Assessment for Educational Progress 

(NAEP), the average math score for 13 year olds in 2008 was only 

15 points higher than in 1973 and reading scores in 2008 were only 

one point higher than in 1971.5 Today, only 60 percent of students 

with disabilities,6 57 percent of African Americans students, and 58 

percent of Hispanic students graduate from high school.7 Additionally, the Secretary of Education has said that more than 80 percent 

of schools will fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) this 

year. 

Despite national challenges, states and school districts are instituting and carrying out dramatic reforms to public education. Reform initiatives that address issues around teacher quality, accountability, and parental options are moving through state legislatures with great success. States with education reform agendas include: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, 

Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. These states have embraced 

state-led accountability efforts, signaling to Congress that they understand a quality education is critical to prepare today’s students 

to compete in tomorrow’s workforce. 

These statistics and state and local leadership demonstrate the 

need to re-evaluate the federal role in elementary and secondary 

education and restore education decisions to states and local school 

districts who should bear the primary responsibility for public education. H.R. 2445, the State and Local Funding Flexibility Act, is 

an important part of this effort to allow education leaders new freedom to use federal funds to develop comprehensive solutions to 

local education challenges. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
10 

Providing funding flexibility for every State and school district 

H.R. 2445, the State and Local Funding Flexibility Act, amends 

Title VI of ESEA to repeal the current Transferability authority, 

replacing it with new authority to allow all 50 states and almost 

14,000 school districts to use funds received under federal formula 

grants and Education Jobs Funds to support certain activities authorized under ESEA. Under the legislation, states and school districts will be able to use more than $20 billion in federal funds on 

their own state and local education priorities, thereby increasing 

the academic achievement of all students, including special populations. 

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires states 

and school districts to be accountable for the academic achievement 

of all students. Although funds are allocated to states and school 

districts, in part, based on the number of low-income students they 

serve, the law focused on helping all students excel academically. 

The Committee believes the current structure and use of federal 

funds must be updated to reflect existing realities and the needs 

of states and school districts to improve public education for all 

students. 

Under the State and Local Funding Flexibility Act, states and 

school districts could use federal education funds to bolster those 

activities that support all students, including low-income students, 

English Language Learners, migrant students, and other special 

populations. The legislation will help states and school districts 

meet the requirements of Title I (Aid for the Disadvantaged) and 

Title III (English Language Acquisition) programs, which hold all 

schools accountable for student performance, including student 

subgroups, and English proficiency, respectively. At the same time, 

the legislation preserves the current Title I and Title III provisions 

requiring states and local school districts to disaggregate data and 

measure student performance to ensure all students are excelling 

academically and achieving English proficiency. As such, states and 

school districts will still be held accountable for the academic 

achievement of special populations of students. 

Schools with a poverty level of at least 40 percent are currently 

able to use Title I funds for school-wide programs that benefit all 

students and consolidate a number of federal ESEA programs to 

meet their students’ unique needs. This poverty threshold was lowered from 75 percent to 50 percent in the 1994 reauthorization of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and was reduced 

again in the No Child Left Behind Act. There is a long-standing, 

bipartisan federal recognition that the best way to address the 

needs of the most at-risk students is to enable and encourage 

school-wide solutions. The Committee notes that H.R. 2445 builds 

on this consensus by expanding the flexibility provided through the 

Title I school-wide program, as well as the REAP Flex program, to 

additional federal education programs. 

The State and Local Funding Flexibility Act will help put decisions about education priorities back in the hands of state officials 

and school administrators while maintaining accountability standards and protecting taxpayers. Lawmakers and bureaucrats in the 

nation’s capital will never have the same integral understanding of 

the diverse needs of students in cities like New Orleans, Indianapolis, or Tampa Bay as the teachers, administrators, and parents 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
11 

who spend time with them every day. The bill provides states and 

school districts with additional flexibility to target federal dollars 

to the programs and initiatives that best meet the unique needs of 

their students. 

Challenging erroneous myths 

While empowering states and local officials to take the lead on 

important education reform efforts, H.R. 2445 does not take money 

away from poor or disadvantaged children, migrant, neglected and 

delinquent, English Language Learners, and Native American students. The bill does not allow states or school districts to change 

formula allocations or allow states and school districts to ignore 

civil rights laws or neglect the academic achievement of all students. 

TITLE I—EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

The Committee believes the best way to address the needs of atrisk students is to enable and encourage solutions that benefit all 

students. The State and Local Funding Flexibility Act leaves these 

decisions to states and school districts by providing the flexibility 

to redirect funds across federal programs. For example, if a LEA 

determines that more support is needed to serve disadvantaged 

students for Title I purposes, it could use Title II (Teacher Quality 

Grants) to support those important activities and programs under 

Title I. A local school district could also use Title I funds for new 

teacher preparation programs or to create new literacy initiatives 

that benefit all students. As noted, H.R. 2445 will not change the 

formula allocation for Title I Part A. Funds will continue to be distributed to each school district under existing formulas that take 

into consideration factors such as concentrations of poor students 

and the amount of state funding spent on education. Under current 

law, Title I schools that have 40 percent or more students from 

low-income families are classified as ‘School-Wide Programs’ and 

are allowed to spend Title I funds to support all students in the 

school, not just those who are disadvantaged. Today, more than 50 

percent of Title I schools are ‘school-wide’ and use funds to support 

all students. The bill attempts to expand this authority to all 

schools in the nation, allowing them to take advantage of this important flexibility. 

TITLE III—ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Many state and local activities required under the Title III program, such as increasing student academic achievement in core 

academic subjects, improving the achievement of English Language 

Learners, and providing professional development to classroom 

teachers, mirror similar provisions under Title I (Aid for the Disadvantaged) and Title II (Teacher Quality State Grant) programs. 

States and school districts use Title I and Title II funds—funds 

that benefit all students—to serve English Language Learners. The 

federal government should give state and local areas additional 

flexibility to consolidate funding streams so that all students can 

be served through a seamless education system. The Committee 

notes that states and school districts have not been meeting the annual performance targets for English Language Learners as established in current law. According to the Department of Education, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
12 

just 10 states met all of their Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives in the 2008–2009 school year and only 46 percent 

of school districts met them. The State and Local Funding Flexibility Act will allow states and school districts to use a different 

funding model to address the needs of English Language Learners 

while still being responsible for meeting the objectives under current law. 

TITLE VII—INDIAN EDUCATION

Contrary to false charges, H.R. 2445 does not jeopardize the sovereign rights of Indian students and does not alter the commitment 

or guaranteed funding provided to Indian reservations by the Bureau of Indian Education. The bill simply provides school districts 

with the flexibility to rededicate funds across federal programs. If 

a school district determines more support is needed for Title VII 

purposes, it could use funds from the Education Jobs Fund to support those important activities. 

EDUCATION FOR MIGRANT, AND NEGLECTED AND DELINQUENT

STUDENTS

Title I, Parts C and D provide grants to states to establish and 

improve programs for children of migrant workers and neglected 

and delinquent children. The State and Local Funding Flexibility 

Act does not change the accountability requirements that are in 

place for these students under the main Title I program. The bill 

merely allows states and school districts to consolidate funding 

streams across titles to improve academic programs for all students. 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee believes states and school districts are best suited to decide how funds should be used to serve their students. H.R. 

2445 includes provisions requiring states to notify the Secretary of 

Education of their intention to use the flexibility authority under 

the bill by June 1 of each year. The bill also requires school districts to notify states of their intention to use funding flexibility, 

providing important information to federal and state policymakers 

and the public. Additionally, the bill maintains current mechanisms through which states and school districts report on the academic performance of their students and how they are using federal funds, including state or local plans, application processes, or 

annual reports. 

Conclusion 

Our nation’s education system is not properly educating our kids 

for future success; it is time for a new approach. H.R. 2445, the 

State and Local Funding Flexibility Act, streamlines and simplifies 

the federal role in education, empowering states, school districts, 

teachers, and parents to pursue innovative reforms that meet the 

needs of their students. The Committee strongly supports this effort to provide states and school districts the flexibility to determine how they use federal funds at the local level to promote innovation and increase academic achievement for all children. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
13 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1—Short title 

States the short title as the ‘‘State and Local Funding Flexibility 

Act.’’ 

Section 2—Flexibility to use federal funds 

Specifies the new flexibility offered to states and school districts, 

including the funds that may be used and the activities that may 

be supported for funding flexibility. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute, are explained in the body of this report. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch. H.R. 2445 

amends Title VI, Part A, Subpart 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to provide states and school districts with 

maximum flexibility to use federal education dollars on programs 

that best serve the needs of students. 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement of whether the 

provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. This 

issue is addressed in the CBO letter. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

H.R. 2445 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of 

House Rule XXI. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for each record vote 

on a motion to report the measure or matter and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the total number of votes 

for and against and the names of the Members voting for and 

against. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
14 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInert graphic folio 16 HR180.001
15 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInert graphic folio 17 HR180.002
16 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInert graphic folio 18 HR180.003
17 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInert graphic folio 19 HR180.004
18 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInert graphic folio 20 HR180.005
19 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInert graphic folio 21 HR180.006
20 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInert graphic folio 22 HR180.007
21 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the goal of 

H.R. 2445 is to streamline the federal role in education and spur 

local innovation by providing states and school districts with maximum flexibility to use federal education dollars on programs that 

best serve the needs of students. The Committee expects the Department of Education to comply with these provisions and implement the changes to the law in accordance with these stated goals. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

body of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 

Committee has received the following estimate for H.R. 2445 from 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, July 14, 2011. 

Hon. JOHN KLINE, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2445, the State and Local 

Funding Flexibility Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Justin Humphrey. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2445—State and Local Funding Flexibility Act 

H.R. 2445 would amend title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to permit state and local education 

agencies to use federal funds appropriated for specific educational 

activities to carry out other federal authorized education programs 

specified in the bill. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2445 would have no net 

effect on discretionary spending. The underlying authorizations for 

the specified programs for which funds may be used under H.R. 

2445 have expired. Thus, enacting the bill would provide flexibility 

for using appropriated funds to the extent that those programs are 

reauthorized in subsequent legislation. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
22 

In addition, enacting the bill would have no impact on mandatory spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do 

not apply. 

H.R. 2445 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Justin Humphrey. 

This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the costs 

that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 2445. However, clause 

3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not 

apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 

1965 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VI—FLEXIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

PART A—IMPROVING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

* * * * * * * 

øSubpart 2—Funding Transferability for State and Local Educational Agencies 

øSec. 6121. Short title. 

øSec. 6122. Purpose. 

øSec. 6123. Transferability of funds.¿ 

Subpart 2—Funding Flexibility for State and Local Educational Agencies 

Sec. 6121. Short title. 

Sec. 6122. Purpose. 

Sec. 6123. Flexibility to use Federal funds. 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
23 

TITLE VI—FLEXIBILITY AND 

ACCOUNTABILITY 

PART A—IMPROVING ACADEMIC 

ACHIEVEMENT 

* * * * * * * 

øSubpart 2—Funding Transferability for State 

and Local Educational Agencies 

øSEC. 6121. SHORT TITLE. 

øThis subpart may be cited as the ‘‘State and Local Transferability Act’’. 

øSEC. 6122. PURPOSE. 

øThe purpose of this subpart is to allow States and local educational agencies the flexibility— 

ø(1) to target Federal funds to Federal programs that most 

effectively address the unique needs of States and localities; 

and 

ø(2) to transfer Federal funds allocated to other activities to 

allocations for certain activities authorized under title I. 

øSEC. 6123. TRANSFERABILITY OF FUNDS. 

ø(a) TRANSFERS BY STATES.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with this subpart, a State 

may transfer not more than 50 percent of the nonadministrative State funds (including funds transferred under paragraph 

(2)) allotted to the State for use for State-level activities under 

the following provisions for a fiscal year to one or more of the 

State’s allotments for such fiscal year under any other of such 

provisions: 

ø(A) Section 2113(a)(3). 

ø(B) Section 2412(a)(1). 

ø(C) Subsections (a)(1) (with the agreement of the Governor) and (c)(1) of section 4112 and section 4202(c)(3). 

ø(D) Section 5112(b). 

ø(2) ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR TITLE I.—In accordance with this 

subpart and subject to the 50 percent limitation described in 

paragraph (1), a State may transfer any funds allotted to the 

State under a provision listed in paragraph (1) to its allotment 

under title I. 

ø(b) TRANSFERS BY LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.— 

ø(1) AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER FUNDS.— 

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with this subpart, a 

local educational agency (except a local educational agency 

identified for improvement under section 1116(c) or subject 

to corrective action under section 1116(c)(9)) may transfer 

not more than 50 percent of the funds allocated to it (including funds transferred under subparagraph (C)) under 

each of the provisions listed in paragraph (2) for a fiscal 

year to one or more of its allocations for such fiscal year 

under any other provision listed in paragraph (2). 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
24 

ø(B) AGENCIES IDENTIFIED FOR IMPROVEMENT.—In accordance with this subpart, a local educational agency 

identified for improvement under section 1116(c) may 

transfer not more than 30 percent of the funds allocated 

to it (including funds transferred under subparagraph (C)) 

under each of the provisions listed in paragraph (2) for a 

fiscal year— 

ø(i) to its allocation for school improvement for such 

fiscal year under section 1003; or 

ø(ii) to any other allocation for such fiscal year if 

such transferred funds are used only for local educational agency improvement activities consistent with 

section 1116(c). 

ø(C) ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR TITLE I.—In accordance with 

this subpart and subject to the percentage limitation described in subparagraph (A) or (B), as applicable, a local 

educational agency may transfer funds allocated to such 

agency under any of the provisions listed in paragraph (2) 

for a fiscal year to its allocation for part A of title I for that 

fiscal year. 

ø(2) APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—A local educational agency 

may transfer funds under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) from allocations made under each of the following 

provisions: 

ø(A) Section 2121. 

ø(B) Section 2412(a)(2)(A). 

ø(C) Section 4112(b)(1). 

ø(D) Section 5112(a). 

ø(c) NO TRANSFER OF TITLE I FUNDS.—A State or a local educational agency may not transfer under this subpart to any other 

program any funds allotted or allocated to it for part A of title I. 

ø(d) MODIFICATION OF PLANS AND APPLICATIONS; NOTIFICATION.— 

ø(1) STATE TRANSFERS.—Each State that makes a transfer of 

funds under this section shall— 

ø(A) modify, to account for such transfer, each State 

plan, or application submitted by the State, to which such 

funds relate; 

ø(B) not later than 30 days after the date of such transfer, submit a copy of such modified plan or application to 

the Secretary; and 

ø(C) not later than 30 days before the effective date of 

such transfer, notify the Secretary of such transfer. 

ø(2) LOCAL TRANSFERS.—Each local educational agency that 

makes a transfer of funds under this section shall— 

ø(A) modify, to account for such transfer, each local plan, 

or application submitted by the agency, to which such 

funds relate; 

ø(B) not later than 30 days after the date of such transfer, submit a copy of such modified plan or application to 

the State; and 

ø(C) not later than 30 days before the effective date of 

such transfer, notify the State of such transfer. 

ø(e) APPLICABLE RULES.— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
25 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, funds transferred under this section are subject to each 

of the rules and requirements applicable to the funds under 

the provision to which the transferred funds are transferred. 

ø(2) CONSULTATION.—Each State educational agency or local 

educational agency that transfers funds under this section 

shall conduct consultations in accordance with section 9501, if 

such transfer transfers funds from a program that provides for 

the participation of students, teachers, or other educational 

personnel, from private schools.¿ 

Subpart 2—Funding Flexibility for State and 

Local Educational Agencies 

SEC. 6121. SHORT TITLE. 

This subpart may be cited as the ‘‘State and Local Funding Flexibility Act’’. 

SEC. 6122. PURPOSE. 

The purpose of this subpart is to allow States and local educational agencies the flexibility to— 

(1) design flexible programs that use Federal funds to support 

student achievement for all students, including students most at 

risk of failing to meet the State’s academic achievement standards; and 

(2) extend and enhance the funding flexibility provided to 

rural local educational agencies under section 6211 to all State 

educational agencies and local educational agencies by providing such agencies flexibility in using Federal formula funds 

received to carry out authorized State or local activities for 

other authorized or required State or local activities. 

SEC. 6123. FLEXIBILITY TO USE FEDERAL FUNDS. 

(a) ALTERNATIVE USES OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (c) and (d) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State educational 

agency may use the applicable funding that the agency receives 

for a fiscal year to carry out any State activity authorized or required under one or more of the following provisions: 

(A) Section 1003. 

(B) Section 1004. 

(C) Subpart 1 of part B of title I. 

(D) Part C of title I. 

(E) Part D of title I. 

(F) Part A of title II. 

(G) Part B of title II. 

(H) Title III. 

(I) Part B of title IV. 

(J) Part A of title V. 

(K) Subpart 1 of part A of title VI. 

(L) Subpart 2 of part B of title VI. 

(M) Subpart 2 of part A of title VII. 

(2) NOTIFICATION.—Not later than June 1 of each year, a 

State educational agency shall notify the Secretary of the State 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
26 

educational agency’s intention to use the applicable funding for 

any of the alternative uses under paragraph (1). 

(3) APPLICABLE FUNDING DEFINED.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph 

(B), in this subsection, the term ‘‘applicable funding’’ means 

funds provided to carry out State activities under one or 

more of the following provisions: 

(i) Section 1003(g)(2). 

(ii) Section 1004. 

(iii) Subpart I of Part B of title I. 

(iv) Part C of title I. 

(v) Part D of title I. 

(vi) Part A of title II. 

(vii) Part B of title II. 

(viii) Part A of title III. 

(ix) Part B of title IV. 

(x) Part A of title V. 

(xi) Title I of Public Law 111–226. 

(B) LIMITATION.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘applicable 

funding’’ does not include funds provided under any of the 

provisions listed in subparagraph (A) that State educational agencies are required by this Act— 

(i) to reserve, allocate, or spend for required activities; 

(ii) to allot or award to local educational agencies or 

other entities eligible to receive such funds; or 

(iii) to use for technical assistance or monitoring. 

(4) DISBURSEMENT.—The Secretary shall disburse the applicable funding to State educational agencies for alternative uses 

under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year at the same time as the 

Secretary disburses the applicable funding to State educational 

agencies that do not intend to use the applicable funding for 

such alternative uses for the fiscal year. 

(b) ALTERNATIVE USES OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (c) and (d) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local educational 

agency may use the applicable funding that the agency receives 

for a fiscal year to carry out any local activity authorized or required under one or more of the following provisions: 

(A) Section 1003. 

(B) Part A of title I. 

(C) Subpart 1 of part B of title I. 

(D) Part C of title I. 

(E) Part D of title I. 

(F) Part A of title II. 

(G) Part B of title II. 

(H) Part A of title III. 

(I) Part B of title IV. 

(J) Part A of title V. 

(K) Subpart 2 of part B of title VI. 

(L) Part A of title VII. 

(M) Section 613(f) of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1413(f)). 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
27 

(2) NOTIFICATION.—A local educational agency shall notify 

the State educational agency of the local educational agency’s 

intention to use the applicable funding for any of the alternative 

uses under paragraph (1) by a date that is established by the 

State educational agency for the notification. 

(3) APPLICABLE FUNDING DEFINED.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph 

(B), in this subsection, the term ‘‘applicable funding’’ means 

funds provided to carry out local activities under one or 

more of the following provisions: 

(i) Part A of title I. 

(ii) Part C of title I. 

(iii) Part D of title I. 

(iv) Part A of title II. 

(v) Part A of title III. 

(vi) Part A of title V. 

(vii) Part A of title VII. 

(viii) Title I of Public Law 111–226. 

(B) LIMITATION.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘applicable 

funding’’ does not include funds provided under any of the 

provisions listed in subparagraph (A) that local educational agencies are required by this Act— 

(i) to reserve, allocate, or spend for required activities; 

(ii) to allot or award to entities eligible to receive 

such funds; or 

(iii) to use for technical assistance or monitoring. 

(4) DISBURSEMENT.—Each State educational agency that receives applicable funding for a fiscal year shall disburse the applicable funding to local educational agencies for alternative 

uses under paragraph (1) for the fiscal year at the same time 

as the State educational agency disburses the applicable funding to local educational agencies that do not intend to use the 

applicable funding for such alternative uses for the fiscal year. 

(c) RULE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—A State educational agency or a local educational agency may only use applicable funding 

(as defined in subsection (a)(3) or (b)(3), respectively) for administrative costs incurred in carrying out a provision listed in subsection 

(a)(1) or (b)(1), respectively, to the extent that the agency, in the absence of this section, could have used funds for administrative costs 

with respect to a program listed in subsection (a)(3) or (b)(3), respectively. 

(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be 

construed to relieve a State educational agency or local educational 

agency of any requirements relating to— 

(1) maintenance of effort; 

(2) use of Federal funds to supplement, not supplant, nonFederal funds; 

(3) comparability of services; 

(4) equitable participation of private school students and 

teachers; 

(5) applicable civil rights requirements; 

(6) the selection of school attendance areas or schools under 

subsections (a) and (b), and allocations to such areas or schools 

under subsection (c), of section 1113; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
28 

(7) section 1111; 

(8) section 1116; or 

(9) section 3122. 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
(29) 

1 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 2 U.S. Department of Education. (2011). The Federal Role in Education. Retrieved from: 

http://www.2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.htlm 

MINORITY VIEWS 

Committee Democrats strongly and unanimously oppose H.R. 

2445. Under the guise of flexibility, H.R. 2445 dismantles the federal role in education—exacerbating achievement gaps and funding 

inequities, and it does nothing to address the concerns raised by 

education stakeholders. H.R. 2445 does not address the core issues 

of No Child Left Behind that must be revised: it does nothing to 

address standards and assessment; it does nothing to address Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); it does nothing to address school improvement; and it does nothing to improve application processes or 

reporting requirements. In fact, it does nothing at all to improve 

student achievement. 

H.R. 2445 allows school districts to use taxpayer dollars arbitrarily, for purposes other than that for which the money was intended; dismantling the fundamental role of the federal government in education. H.R. 2445 attacks children’s civil rights. It endangers our schools, our economic stability and our global competitiveness. It deliberately hurts the students, families, communities, 

and schools that need help the most. It amounts to a raid on the 

funding for disadvantaged schools and students. 

Specifically, the bill allows funds from formula programs within 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including formula 

programs targeting specific disadvantaged student populations, to 

be spent on nearly any purpose under the Act, thereby undermining federal efforts to increase educational equity for disadvantaged students and jeopardizing our national competitiveness. 

H.R. 2445 DISMANTLES THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION

The modern federal role in the nation’s K–12 education system 

arose out of two significant events—Brown v. Board of Education 

and Sputnik. In 1954, the Supreme Court declared in Brown v. 

Board of Education that every child in this country has a right to 

equal access to education—a separate education for black and 

white students cannot be considered equal.1 In 1957, the Soviet 

Union launched Sputnik, the world’s first venture into outer space, 

igniting a national concern that our education system was not sufficient to keep up with new global competitors.2 As a result, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act in 1958 which focused on improving science, math, and foreign language instruction 

in our elementary and secondary schools. Seven years later, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would follow. 

Although progress has been made since then, the need remains 

for our education laws to remedy inequality and increase student 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
30 

3OECD (2011), Lessons from PISA for the United States, Strong Performers and Successful 

Reformers in Education, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1878/ 

9789264096660-en. 4 Ibid. 

achievement. In a nation of growing income disparity, a state and 

local tax structure that allows education funding inequities, and a 

legacy of racial segregation, education inequalities will persist, or 

even grow, without an updated education law and a reordering of 

national priorities. 

While equity in education is a moral and constitutional issue, it 

is also inextricably tied to economic competitiveness. Students that 

graduate high school today are entering a labor market that is 

more globalized and more competitive than ever. Of 34 industrialized countries, in 2009, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in 

science, and 25th in math.3 These rankings are directly linked to 

the United States tolerating achievement gaps within its population. Our top 10 percent of students perform equally with the students from top countries internationally, but there are significant 

discrepancies between the performance of students in those other 

countries and the rest of our population, especially poor and minority children.4

Many of the primary formula programs under the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act are driven by a focus on specific students—such as students from low-income families, migrant students, neglected and delinquent students, English language learners, and American Indian students—that have been traditionally 

underserved in education. These programs were created to promote 

equity and to ensure resources were focused on these traditionally 

underserved populations. While these programs require that funding be spent on the designated population, they offer considerable 

flexibility to districts in how those districts spend funds to improve 

services to the students for which they are intended. 

Instead of targeting funds to the schools and students most in 

need, H.R. 2445 would allow formula funds from programs to be 

moved around and spent for nearly any purpose under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. States and districts would get 

federal funds for specific purposes, but be permitted to spend those 

funds elsewhere. Districts would only be required to notify the 

state of their intent to change the use of funds, and states would 

only need to notify the Secretary. Neither would need to report on 

how they changed their uses of funds. 

H.R. 2445 DOES NOT IMPROVE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

H.R. 2445 does nothing to fix the problems with No Child Left 

Behind, it does nothing to respond to the requests of education 

stakeholders, and it does not provide real solutions for the burdens 

of current law. Last year, the Committee received thousands of recommendations on how to reauthorize ESEA, including some on 

flexibility. The Committee has also heard testimony on the need for 

flexibility within certain requirements of ESEA. The following section outlines a summary of recommendations the Committee received with regard to flexibility over the past two years. 

• Standards and Assessments: In reauthorization, stakeholders 

have requested Congress provide states with flexibility, funding, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
31 

and incentives to collaborate with other states and develop state 

college- and career-ready standards and higher-quality more-flexible assessments. 

• Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): In reauthorization, stakeholders have requested that ESEA provide greater flexibility in developing statewide accountability systems. They have requested 

flexibility in determining metrics for such accountability systems— 

including examining student growth—and in determining how to 

identify schools in need of improvement. 

• School Improvement: One of the major complaints associated 

with current law is the mandated ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach once 

schools fail to make AYP. LEAs are unable to differentiate services 

based on data indicating their specific needs. In addition, many 

LEAs say that 20 percent set-aside prohibits local flexibility and 

creates more burdens. 

• Funding and Competitive Grant Programs: In reauthorization, 

stakeholders have requested program consolidation around common 

purposes to encourage data-based decision-making, create greater 

efficiencies and reduce burdens for schools and districts. This consolidation creates a more streamlined system for states and districts in applying for funding as they would have fewer required 

applications. 

H.R. 2445 does nothing to address any of these requests for improved flexibility. 

The Majority argues that funds are not diverted from disadvantaged students under their bill because formulas are not changed; 

however, they neglect to mention that once the money is distributed to states and districts, funds can be siphoned from the very 

populations (ie. poor, migrant, English language learners, neglected 

or delinquent children, and Indian children) that drive the formulas and that the law intended to serve. The Majority also argues 

that the bill maintains accountability and reporting, but, if H.R. 

2445 were to be enacted, accountability and reporting become irrelevant because there will be no information on how the money is 

spent. Lastly, the Majority argues they have maintained civil 

rights requirements by including those words in the bill. The 

words, however, are meaningless when the actions of the bill open 

a floodgate to increase inequity in education. 

Committee Democrats believe funding allocated based on the 

number of children from poor families, the number of migrant students, the number of neglected or delinquent students, the number 

of English Language Learners, or the number of Indian students 

should be used for services for those students to increase educational opportunity. Rather than fixing No Child Left Behind, this 

bill fails our students and puts our economic future and global competitiveness at risk. 

TITLE I, PART A: BASIC PROGRAMS FOR IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC

ACHIEVEMENT OF THE DISADVANTAGED

Title I, part A provides grants to school districts for the stated 

purpose of ‘‘meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation’s highest poverty schools.’’ H.R. 2445 allows districts to siphon money away from the low-achieving children in our 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
32 

5 Barbour, E., C. & Skinner, R. (July 12, 2011). The potential effect of H.R. 2445 on Selected 

Provisions in Section 1113 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Congresssional Research Service: Washington, DC. 

highest poverty schools.5 With this bill, the Majority permits districts to spend Title I funding on wealthier schools for activities 

such as CPR training or developing charter schools and threatens 

the services and supports to over 21 million low-income students 

across the nation. 

Over the past 45 years, the Title I, part A program, primarily directed toward elementary schools with low-income and minority 

students, has resulted in academic gains for students. In fact, since 

1973, 4th grade scores on the National Assessment on Education 

Progress have shown dramatic increases on both reading and math 

assessments, and the increases for minority students have outpaced the increases of their peers, helping to narrow the achievement gap. As depicted in the charts below, since the 1970s, math 

scores for 4th grade White students have improved by 25 points, 

while scores for 4th grade Black students have improved by 34 

points and Hispanic students by 32. In reading, since the 1970’s, 

the average score for White students is 14 points higher, while the 

score for Black students is 34 points higher and for Hispanic students 25 points higher. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
33 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInert graphic folio 37 HR180.008
34 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInert graphic folio 38 HR180.009
35 

6 U.S. Department of Education. (2011a). FY2011 Department of Education Justifications of 

Appropriation Estimates to the Congress: Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity. 

Washington, DC. 7 U.S. Department of Labor. (2000). Finding from the National Workers Survey 1997–1998: 

A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farmworkers: Finding from the National Agricultural, Research Report No. 8. Washington, DC. 8 U.S. Department of Education. (2011a). 

Current law already permits considerable flexibility in how districts and schools spend Title I, part A funding as long as the supports are targeted to the low-achieving children in the highest poverty schools. Districts rank and fund their schools based on their 

poverty levels. Schools with poverty levels higher than 40% are 

permitted to operate schoolwide programs. Approximately twothirds of all Title 1-receiving schools meet this threshold. The 

school conducts a needs assessment and then has considerable 

flexibility in developing strategies to improve the academic achievement of their students. The funds can be used for schoolwide activities because the concentration of poverty in these schools is so high 

that most of these students attending these schools are disadvantaged. Schools with poverty levels below 40% operate targeted assistance programs. In these schools, Title I funds are intended to 

be used to improve the academic achievement of those students furthest behind. Again, the school has flexibility in how to spend the 

funds to improve their outcomes, but the services must be provided 

to those students. There is not a specific percentage that must go 

from the district to the schools, but if the districts reserve funds 

they must be spent in low-income communities. Under H.R. 2445, 

districts would no longer be required to spend this money on the 

highest poverty schools or in high-poverty areas. 

With passage of H.R. 2445, the Majority undermines the progress 

that targeted assistance made through Title I, part A has achieved 

in increasing equity in our schools and improving educational opportunity for low-income and minority students. 

TITLE I, PART C: EDUCATION OF MIGRATORY CHILDREN

Title I, Part C provides additional funding to states and school 

districts to support migrant students. With this bill, the Majority 

permits states and school districts to use funding they receive 

based on the number of migrant students they have in their schools 

on other students and for other purposes. 

Migrant children are an especially disadvantaged, hard-to-serve 

group. In addition to being highly mobile, migrant students are 

more likely to live in poverty, have limited English proficiency, and 

have unstable living conditions.6 School-aged migrant workers are 

particularly at risk for poor educational outcomes. According to a 

National Agricultural Workers Survey, only three percent of these 

students were in school and performing at grade level.7 The educational needs of migrant children go well beyond those traditionally supported by state and local budgets and, due to their high 

mobility, no single state or district is responsible for their education.8

Through the Migrant Education Program, states and districts receive funds to support the educational needs of migratory students. 

In 2010, nearly 500,000 students were eligible for federal support 

under the migrant education program, and in 2009, the program 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
36 

9 Ibid. 

10 Harris, P.J., Baltodano, H.M., Bal, A., Jolivette, K., & Malcahy, C. (2009). Reading Achievement of Incarcerated Youth in Three Regions. Journal of Correctional Education, 60(2), 120–145. 11 U.S. Department of Education. (2011a). 

supported approximately 7,000 programs. As a result of the program, the percent of migrant children performing at or above proficient on state assessments is growing. From 2008 to 2009, the 

percent of 4th grade migrant students scoring proficient in reading 

rose by five percent and three percent in math. Additionally, 8th 

grade proficiency scores increased. While these gains are promising, only about half of migrant children are currently scoring proficient or higher. Committee Democrats believe continued support 

for migrant students is essential so that they can continue these 

improvements.9

Current law also permits considerable flexibility in how states 

and districts spend Title I, part C funding as long as the supports 

are targeted to migrant students. With passage of H.R. 2445, the 

Majority is setting our nation back from these academic gains and 

further improvements in educational opportunity for migrant students. 

TITLE I, PART D: PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR

CHILDREN AND YOUTH WHO ARE NEGLECTED, DELINQUENT, OR AT

RISK OF DROPPING OUT

Authorized over 40 years ago, Title I, part D creates both a state 

and local programs intended to improve educational services for 

students who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk of dropping out 

of school. With H.R. 2445, the Majority permits states and school 

districts that receive funding based on the number of neglected and 

delinquent students they have in their schools to use those dollars 

on other students and for other purposes. 

Studies show that incarcerated youth struggle with literacy and 

have a history of high academic failure rates and low school attendance rates.10 Additional research has shown that increasing educational skills for these youth is extremely beneficial for preventing 

future delinquency and reentry to the corrections system.11

The state neglected and delinquent program provides grants for 

the education of children and youth in state institutions for the neglected or delinquent with funds allocated on the basis of the number of those children and youth in the state. The local program provides aid for districts with high percentages of youth in correctional 

facilities to help transition youth back to the school and prevent future delinquency. Over 100,000 youths are currently served by this 

program. 

Presently, the program offers flexibility in how states and districts can use these funds, including through professional development, curricula, and supplemental educational services, to support 

the goal of facilitating successful transition for neglected and delinquent students and helping them graduate high school. H.R. 2445 

undermines the educational opportunities of these students by allowing once targeted funds to be used for other students and for 

other purposes. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
37 

12Lau v. Nichols, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 13 U.S. Department of Education. (2011b). FY2011 Department of Education Justifications of 

Appropriation Estimates to the Congress: English Learner Education. Washington, DC. 14http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/lttdata/. 

TITLE III, PART A: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, LANGUAGE

ENHANCEMENT AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Title III, part A provides funding to states and districts to improve the education of English language learners. H.R. 2445’s 

shortsighted approach jeopardizes the rights of English language 

learner and immigrant students—the rights confirmed by the Supreme Court decision in Lau v. Nichols.12

In Lau, certain Chinese speaking students in the San Francisco 

Unified School District filed suit because they were denied supplemental English language courses. The case was taken to the Supreme Court where it found that, based on the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, the San Francisco Unified School District was in violation of 

the law. Because the District received substantial federal financial 

assistance, the school system was required to ensure that students 

of a particular race, color, or national origin are not denied the 

same opportunities to obtain an education generally obtained by 

other students in the same school system. Title III, part A was 

later created to ensure that English language learners attain 

English proficiency and improve their academic achievement. 

According to the Census Bureau’s ACS data, the number of 

English language learners has risen from less than 1 million in 

1980 to nearly 4.6 million in 2008 in the states, DC, and Puerto 

Rico.13 Nationally, in 4th grade mathematics, the achievement gap 

between English language learners and non-English language 

learners in 2009 was 24 points. In 8th grade mathematics, the 

achievement gap was 41 points. Nationally, in 4th grade reading 

the achievement gap between English language learners and nonEnglish language learners in 2009 was 35 points. In 8th grade 

reading, the achievement gap was 46 points.14 As this population 

grows and achievement gaps continue to exist, targeted federal assistance is necessary to help states and districts improve effective 

instructional practices and support effective educators to serve the 

English Language Learner population so that recipients of federal 

funding use their resources in the most efficient and effective manner possible. 

Current law permits considerable flexibility in how states and 

districts spend Title III, part A funding as long as the supports are 

targeted toward improving the academic achievement of English 

language learners. H.R. 2445 interferes with our nation’s obligations established under Lau v. Nichols, to increase equity in our 

schools and improve educational opportunity for English language 

learners. 

TITLE VII, PART A: INDIAN EDUCATION

Title VII, part A provides grants to districts to address the educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian 

and Alaska Native students. H.R. 2445 allows school districts that 

receive funding based on the number of Indian students they have 

in their schools to use those dollars on other students and for other 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
38 

15 U.S. Department of Education. (2011c). FY2011 Department of Education Justifications of 

Appropriation Estimates to the Congress: Indian Education. Washington, DC. 16Grigg, W., Moran, R., & Kuang, M. (2009). National Indian Education Study—Part 1: Performance of American Indian and Alaska Native Students at Grades 4 and 8 on NAEP 2009 

Reading and Mathematics Assessments. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. 17http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/lttdata/. 18 U.S. Department of Education. (2011c). 

purposes jeopardizing services and supports to over 500,000 students. 

Indian children are subject to significant risk factors that threaten their academic success and overall well-being. Indian students’ 

educational outcomes continue to lag behind their peers. These students are also more likely to qualify for special education services, 

be absent, and be suspended.15

Despite gains in academic achievement over the past 30 years, 

a significant achievement gap between Indian students and the 

general student population persists.16 In fact, in 2008, Indian students lagged 18 points behind their White peers in 8th grade reading.17 Additionally, in the past 30 years, the number of Indian students enrolling in college has doubled, but the dropout rate for Indian high school students is significantly above the national average.18 These students deserve the support of federal programs to 

address their specific educational needs. 

Current law actually permits considerable flexibility in how districts spend Title VII, part A funding as long as the funds are targeted toward improving the achievement of American Indian students. H.R. 2445 allows funds to be siphoned away from serving 

this important student population and undermines our nations effort to improve the educational outcomes and educational opportunity for American Indian and Alaska Native students. 

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

With H.R. 2445, the Majority will erode fiscal accountability. 

Without reporting requirements, it will be impossible to monitor 

fiscal accountability provisions—federal dollars can supplant local 

dollars and comparable services in our schools will be abandoned. 

In fact, the Majority voted unanimously against an amendment to 

include much needed reporting requirements and transparency. 

Fiscal accountability has always been included in the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act to ensure federal dollars are spent 

appropriately and to ensure that states and local districts also contribute to improve K–12 education. H.R. 2445 says that nothing in 

this bill ‘‘shall be construed to relieve a state educational agency 

or a local educational agency of any requirements relating to’’ supplement not supplant and comparability of services. However, the 

bill also fails to put in place provisions to make these protections 

feasible. 

H.R. 2445 only requires that districts notify a state of their intent to use this provision and only requires the state to notify the 

Secretary. It does not require districts or states to report on how 

the funds are used or who is served by the federal funds. 

Without this critical information, these essential fiscal accountability requirements will be impossible to monitor. There would be 

no assurance that the federal funds are supplementing non-federal 

funds because we will not know how federal funds are spent. AddiVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:27 Jul 27, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
39 

tionally, this bill undermines Title I leaving it with no requirement 

to actually establish Title I receiving schools. Without Title I receiving schools, we will be unable to determine if high-poverty 

schools are receiving comparable services to the wealthier schools. 

H.R. 2445 will permit taxpayer dollars to be spent at the local level 

without any accountability for how they are spent. 

LETTERS OF OPPOSITION

The Committee received letters of opposition for H.R. 2445 from: 

The Congressional Black Caucus; the Congressional Asian Pacific 

American Caucus; the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Asian 

American and Pacific Islander Organizations (AAPI); American 

Federation of Teachers (AFT); Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD); Council for Exceptional Children (CEC); Council of 

the Great City Schools; Democrats for Education Reform; The Education Trust; Hispanic Education Coalition (HEC); NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund; Inc. (LDF); Children’s Defense 

Fund (CDF); Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; 

League of United Latin American Citizens; Latino Elected and Appointed Officials National Taskforce on Education; National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE); National Association of 

Elementary School Principals (NAESP); National Association of 

Secondary School Principals (NASSP); National Association of 

State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE); Alliance for Excellent Education; National Urban League; Southeast Asia Resource 

Action Center; National Indian Education Association (NIEA); 

League of United Latin American Citizens; National Council of La 

Raza (NCLR); National PTA; National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD); National Education Association (NEA); Tribal Education Departments National Assembly. (TEDNA); Teachers of 

English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL); and the Leadership Conference. 

AMENDMENTS

Due to the detrimental effect H.R. 2445 would have on students’ 

education, Democratic Members offered a series of amendments to 

ensure that states and districts that receive money for specific populations of students spend the money to improve educational opportunities for those students. The amendments simply excluded the 

programs where funding is generated by specific populations from 

this provision. 

Mr. Miller offered an amendment to prohibit districts from using 

funds obtained through Title I, 

Part A, a formula based on the number of poor students in each 

district, from being used for activities that do not support those 

students. The amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. 

Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Hinojosa offered an amendment to prohibit 

states and districts from using funds obtained through a formula 

based on the number of English Language Learners and immigrant 

students in each state, from being used for activities that do not 

support those students. The amendment was defeated on a partyline vote. 

Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Grijalva offered an amendment to prohibit 

states and districts from using funds obtained through Title I, Part 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
40 

19 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 

C, a formula based on the number of migrant students in each 

state, from being used for activities that do not support those students. The amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. 

Mr. Scott offered an amendment to prohibit states and districts 

from using funds obtained through Title I, Part D, a formula based 

on the number of neglected and delinquent students in each state, 

from being used for activities that do not support those students. 

The amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. 

Mr. Kildee offered an amendment to prohibit local educational 

agencies from using funds obtained through Title VII, part A, a formula based on the number of Native American and Alaska Native 

students, from being used for purposes other than supporting their 

educational needs. The amendment was defeated on a party-line 

vote. 

Mr. Holt offered an amendment to require states and districts 

that utilize the authority provided under the H.R. 2445 to report 

on what activities were funded, which students benefited from 

those activities, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability 

status, migrant status, English proficiency, and poverty, and the 

numbers of students from which the state’s and District’s funding 

from a particular program was derived. The amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. 

DEMOCRATIC VISION FOR FLEXIBILITY

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, first and foremost, is a civil rights law, carrying out the federal government’s 

role in ensuring equal access and opportunity for all, as required 

by Brown v. Board of Education.19 For all its flaws, No Child Left 

Behind did help local communities and the nation see, for the first 

time, what was happening in our schools for all students. In addition to revealing the state of student achievement, it also held 

schools accountable for improving their students’ performance. Hiding this information and retreating from accountability are not options if we want to close the achievement gap and ensure the 

American workforce remains strong in the global economy. 

To maintain the role of increasing equity and economic competitiveness, the federal government should be setting high standards 

for all students, establishing a strong system for accountability tied 

to those standards, and encouraging more data-based decision making. Once the federal government ensures the collection of this information, sets high standards, and insists on accountability, it 

should step back and give a great deal of flexibility to states and 

school districts in deciding how to help our schools meet our national goals. 

Flexibility will only lead to improved student outcomes and improved school operations, if it is grounded in improving equity and 

student achievement. Student achievement should drive decisionmaking. With the focus on improving student outcomes, additional 

flexibility will lead to greater innovation and allow advancements— 

from what we have learned domestically and internationally—to 

drive practice. Committee Democrats believe that consolidation of 

programs, alignment of data, and modernization of accountability 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
41 

systems can increase flexibility for school districts while maintaining the appropriate federal role in education. 

Consolidation of the smaller programs within ESEA will increase 

efficiency and increase flexibility at the local level, allowing school 

districts to design programs that best meet their needs. Consolidation of programs should maintain focus on data-based decision 

making and accountability for outcomes. It is important that in 

consolidating programs the federal government ensure that essential services to students are not lost, but that districts have the 

flexibility to meet the various needs of their students. For example, 

ESEA currently authorizes several programs on various aspects of 

literacy—family literacy, early literacy, and K–12 literacy. In consolidating these programs into one comprehensive program, Congress would reduce burdens on states and districts by requiring 

only one application and streamlined data requirements in exchange for funding to provide literacy services based on the needs 

of their community. 

When consolidating programs, outcome requirements should be 

aligned and limited in number and focused on increasing student 

achievement and graduating college- and career-ready students. 

The outcome requirements established through Title I, part A—student achievement in English and math and graduation—should be 

central in all programs within ESEA. A focused and narrowed set 

of performance indicators will create coherence within the system 

and reduce burden on schools, districts, and states, while still providing parents, communities, and schools with much needed information on student performance. 

States, districts and schools should be more fairly held accountable while maintaining the federal role in setting high expectations 

and holding all schools accountable for their students’ performance. 

To be fairly held accountable, a system should consider where students and schools start and should create attainable targets that 

schools can achieve. Rather than relying on status-based measures 

to determine a school’s success, Congress should consider student 

growth and school progress in accountability. 

Congress should also fix current law’s ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach 

for schools that are in need of improvement. Districts should be 

able to differentiate services to students to improve academic 

achievement based on data indicating their specific needs. 

CONCLUSION

Flexibility is more than just slogan. Flexibility is something 

schools and districts need in order to improve. When done right, 

giving schools flexibility to adapt and meet their students’ needs, 

while maintaining accountability at every step along the way, will 

help students to get ahead and succeed. Most importantly, schools 

must not lose sight of why the federal government has a role in 

education in the first place: Ensuring every student, regardless of 

their race, economic status or zip code, receives equal access to a 

quality education. H.R. 2445 does not provide schools and districts 

with the real flexibility that they need; it does not provide students 

with educational opportunity. It is an arbitrary policy that undermines equality of opportunity, which is morally reprehensible, constitutionally suspect and a threat our economic competitiveness. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
42 

GEORGE MILLER. DALE E. KILDEE. DONALD M. PAYNE. DAVID WU. RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. RUSH D. HOLT. DENNIS J. KUCINICH. DAVE LOEBSACK. CAROLYN MCCARTHY. ROBERT E. ANDREWS. JOHN F. TIERNEY. TIMOTHY H. BISHOP. SUSAN A. DAVIS. LYNN C. WOOLSEY. ROBERT C. SCOTT. MAZIE K. HIRONO. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS