The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110 ). Appropriations for most programs authorized by the ESEA were authorized through FY2007. As Congress has not reauthorized the ESEA, appropriations for ESEA programs are currently not explicitly authorized. However, because the programs continue to receive annual appropriations, appropriations are considered implicitly authorized. During the 113 th Congress, both the House and Senate have considered legislation to reauthorize the ESEA. On June 12, 2013, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee considered and ordered reported the Strengthening America's Schools Act ( S. 1094 ) by a strictly partisan vote of 12-10. The House Education and Workforce Committee also considered and ordered reported a bill that would reauthorize the ESEA. On June 19, 2013, on a strictly partisan vote of 23-16, the Success for All Students Act ( H.R. 5 ) was ordered reported. H.R. 5 was subsequently considered and amended on the House floor. The amended version of H.R. 5 was passed on July 19, 2013, by a vote of 221-207. It is unclear whether S. 1094 will be considered on the Senate floor. Subsequent references to S. 1094 and H.R. 5 in this report refer to S. 1094 as ordered reported by the HELP Committee and H.R. 5 as passed by the House. S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would take different approaches to reauthorizing the ESEA, most notably in three key areas: (1) accountability for student achievement, (2) teacher quality versus teacher effectiveness, and (3) targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of a block grant. In addition, both S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would eliminate existing programs, while creating new programs. This report examines major features of S. 1094 and H.R. 5 with respect to current law. The report begins by discussing the approach that each bill takes toward reshaping the ESEA in key areas. Next, the report provides a structured orientation by ESEA title and part of how the ESEA would be reconfigured under each bill. Then it more thoroughly summarizes the major proposals in the bills, focusing on those aspects of the bills that would fundamentally change a portion of current law. The report does not aim to provide a comprehensive summary of these bills or of technical changes that would be made by each measure. The report concludes with an appendix that examines the proposed program authorizations included in each bill. For the purposes of this report, a program is considered to be a new program if the program is a newly proposed program or is a substantively changed or reconfigured existing program (e.g., multiple aspects of a program are changed, such as the purpose of the program, distribution of funds, uses of funds, or eligible recipients of funds). Programs included in the ESEA reauthorization bills are considered to be similar to programs in current law if they are substantively similar in purpose, recipients, and activities. The tables in this report refer to these programs as being "retained" by a particular bill. For example, the Advanced Placement program is considered to be retained under S. 1094 , as the new program (Accelerated Learning) would be substantively similar to the program included in current law, despite change in the use of funds to support tests administered under the International Baccalaureate program. On the other hand, the block grant program created under H.R. 5 is considered a new program, as it differs from the current Innovative Programs block grant program in numerous ways including program purposes, funding to subgrantees, and allowable activities. Concurrently, the block grant program under current law is considered to be "not retained" under H.R. 5 . It should be noted that an indication that a particular program would not be included in a particular bill does not mean that all of the activities authorized under current law for the program would be eliminated. The activities may be continued under a different program. For example, while H.R. 5 would no longer retain many of the current ESEA programs, H.R. 5 would include a block grant program under which funds could potentially be used for similar activities as were permitted or required under some programs that would not be retained. The uses of funds under the proposed block grant program are discussed in this report. Similarly, if an existing program or activity is not specifically mentioned as allowable under a new program, it should not be assumed that funds could not be used to support such programs or activities. It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss proposed programs or activities in great detail. At the same time, an indication that a program would be "similar to current law" does not mean that it would be retained without changes. As previously discussed, this report focuses on major changes that would be made to current law, so there may be additional changes made to a program or activity that are not highlighted in this report. While Congress has not enacted legislation to reauthorize the ESEA, on September 23, 2011, President Obama and the secretary announced the availability of an ESEA flexibility package for states and described the principles that states must meet to obtain the included waivers. The waivers exempt states from various academic accountability requirements, teacher qualification-related requirements, and funding flexibility requirements that were enacted through NCLB. State educational agencies (SEAs) may also apply for optional waivers related to the 21 st Century Community Learning Centers program and the use of funds, determinations of adequate yearly progress (AYP), and the allocation of Title I-A funds to schools. However, in order to receive the waivers, SEAs must agree to meet four principles established by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) for "improving student academic achievement and increasing the quality of instruction." The four principles, as stated by ED, are: (1) college- and career-ready expectations for all students; (2) state-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; (3) supporting effective instruction and leadership; and (4) reducing duplication and unnecessary burden. The waivers apply to school years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014. States have the option to apply for a one-year waiver extension for the 2014-2015 school year. Taken collectively, the waivers and principles included in the ESEA flexibility package amount to a fundamental redesign by the Administration of many of the accountability and teacher-related requirements included in current law. As of June 2013, ED had approved ESEA flexibility package applications for 39 states and the District of Columbia and was reviewing applications from several other states. If Congress continues to work on ESEA reauthorization during the 113 th Congress, it is possible that provisions included in any final bill may be similar to or override the waivers and principles established by the Administration. The remainder of this report focuses only on current law and does not compare the provisions in H.R. 5 or S. 1094 with the provisions included in the ESEA flexibility package. This section of the report examines the reauthorization approaches taken by S. 1094 and H.R. 5 in three key areas: (1) accountability for student achievement, (2) teacher quality versus teacher effectiveness, and (3) targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of a block grant. For each of the three areas, a brief discussion of the treatment of the issue under current law is included, followed by a summary of how S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would address the issues. Under NCLB, a series of comprehensive standards-based accountability requirements were enacted. States, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools must comply with these requirements in order to receive Title I-A funds. The key features of these requirements are discussed below. This is followed by a brief discussion of how S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would treat each of these requirements. Standards. At a minimum, each state must adopt challenging academic content and challenging student academic achievement standards in mathematics and reading/language arts (hereinafter referred to as reading) for each of grades 3-8 and for one grade in grades 10-12. States must also adopt content and achievement standards for science for at least three grade levels (grades 3-5, grades 6-9, and grades 10-12). States may choose to adopt standards for other subject areas. Assessments. All states must develop and implement annual assessments aligned with content and achievement standards in reading and mathematics for grades 3-8 and one grade in grades 10-12. In addition, each state must develop and administer science assessments aligned with content and achievement standards once in grades 3-5, grades 6-9, and grades 10-12. Annual measurable objectives (AMOs). States must develop AMOs that are established separately for reading and mathematics assessments, are the same for all schools and LEAs, identify a single minimum percentage of students who must meet or exceed the proficient level on the assessments that applies to the "all students group" and each subgroup for which data are disaggregated, and ensure that all students will meet or exceed the state's proficient level of achievement on the assessments based on a timeline established by the state. The timeline must incorporate concrete movement toward meeting an "ultimate goal" of all students reaching a proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Adequate yearly progress (AYP). AYP is determined based on three components: student academic achievement on the required state reading and mathematics assessments, with a focus on the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or higher; 95% student participation rates in assessments by all students and for any subgroup for which data are disaggregated; and performance on another academic indicator, which must be graduation rates for high schools. Schools or LEAs meet AYP standards only if they meet the required threshold levels of performance on all three indicators for the all students group and any subgroup for which data are disaggregated. AYP must be determined separately and specifically not only for all students but also for all subgroups for which data must be disaggregated within each school, LEA, and state. Consequences based on performance. States are required to identify LEAs, and LEAs are required to identify schools, for program improvement if the LEA or school failed to meet the state AYP standards for two consecutive years. LEAs or schools that fail to meet AYP standards for additional years are required to take a variety of actions. For example, schools that fail to meet AYP for two consecutive years are identified for school improvement and must offer public school choice to students, develop a school improvement plan, and use Title I-A funds for professional development. Failure to make AYP for an additional year results in a school also having to offer supplemental educational services (SES). LEAs are required to reserve 20% of their Title I-A funds for transportation for public school choice and for SES. Schools that fail to make AYP for an additional year continue to do all of the aforementioned activities and enter into corrective action. Under corrective action, they are required to take one of several statutorily specified actions, including replacing school staff, changing the curriculum, extending the school year or school day, limiting management authority at the school level, working with an outside expert, or restructuring the schools' internal organization. Subsequent failure to make AYP requires a school to plan for and, ultimately, implement restructuring. Restructuring involves the continuation of the aforementioned activities and implementation of an alternative governance structure, such as converting to a charter school. It should be noted that these consequences are applied regardless of the extent to which a school failed to make AYP in a given year but consequences need only be applied to schools receiving Title I-A funds. S. 1094 would retain similar requirements related to standards and assessments; however, all states would be required to develop college and career ready standards in reading, mathematics, and science, and assessments would have to be aligned with these new standards. States would have the discretion to administer a single annual summative assessment or multiple assessments administered throughout the school year that result in a single summative score. Assessments would have to provide data on student proficiency and growth. States would be permitted to use computer adaptive assessments that could measure student proficiency and growth against grade level standards, as well as above and below those standards. S. 1094 would require that assessments be administered to not less than 95% of all students and not less than 95% of the members of each subgroup for which data are disaggregated. Each state's accountability system would have to include the subjects of reading and mathematics and could include science or any other subject selected by the state. Each state accountability system would be required to have at least three categories of student performance which must include (1) students who are meeting or exceeding state academic standards; (2) students whose proficiency in a subject is below grade level but who are achieving sufficient growth; and (3) students whose proficiency is below grade level and are not achieving sufficient growth. Each state would also be required to establish "ambitious and achievable" annual performance targets for the state, LEAs, and public schools in the state for each subject area and grade level that is assessed for accountability purposes instead of AMOs. States would be permitted to use (1) the performance standards adopted under the ESEA flexibility package offered to the states by the Administration; (2) standards that set a goal for every public school to meet the achievement level of the highest-performing 10% of schools in the state, provided that annual progress toward that goal within a specified "reasonable time period" is required, and accelerated progress for students at the lowest levels or student achievement is required; or (3) performance targets that are equally ambitious as the other two options. Performance targets would have to be developed for student proficiency, student growth, English language proficiency for English learners, and high school graduation rates. The secretary would have to approve all performance targets that had not already been approved through the ESEA flexibility package. AYP determinations would no longer have to be made. With respect to "consequences," states would be required to identify "lack of improvement" schools, "focus" schools, and "priority" schools. Lack of improvement schools would include schools that have failed to meet the same subgroup performance target for the preceding three consecutive years. These schools would have to work with the SEA to implement a state-approved intervention based on best practices within the state. A school would be identified as a focus school if it has not been identified as a priority school and (1) is in the 10% of schools with the greatest achievement gaps among subgroups as compared to the statewide average or (2) is a public high school that is in the 10% of schools with the greatest graduation rate gaps among such subroups, as compared to the statewide average. These schools would be required to develop and implement a "measurable and data-driven" correction plan. A school would be identified as a priority school if it is in the lowest-achieving 5% of elementary schools, is in the lowest-achieving 5% of secondary schools, is a public high school with a graduation rate of less than 60%, or has been identified as a focus school for the six preceding consecutive years. Each LEA serving a priority school would be required to implement several activities including a needs analysis in the school, a statutorily specified intervention strategy (i.e., transformation strategy, turnaround strategy, whole school reform strategy, restart strategy and school closure strategy), and public school choice. SES would no longer be required. Under H.R. 5 , states would be required to adopt content and achievement standards for mathematics, reading, science, and any other subject as determined by the state. Assessments would have to be aligned with these standards and be administered in each of grades 3-8 and once in grades 9-12. States would have the discretion to administer a single annual summative assessment or multiple assessments administered throughout the school year that result in a single summative score. Assessments would have to provide data on student academic proficiency. States would have the option of also using assessments to measure student academic growth. States would also be permitted to use computer adaptive assessments that could measure student proficiency and growth against grade level standards, as well as above and below those standards. States would no longer be required to establish AMOs or determine AYP. H.R. 5 would require that assessments be administered to not less than 95% of all students and not less than 95% of the members of each subgroup for which data are disaggregated. The bill would require that high school graduation rates be reported. In addition, there would be no "ultimate goal" with associated consequences toward which states, LEAs, and schools must work. The state accountability system would be required to annually evaluate and identify the academic performance of each public school based on (1) student academic achievement against the state standards, which may include measures of growth toward meeting such standards, using the aforementioned required mathematics and reading assessments and other valid and reliable academic indicators related to student achievement as identified by the state; (2) the overall performance and achievement gaps as compared to the performance of all students in the school for each subgroup for which data are disaggregated for accountability purposes; and (3) other measures of school success. The bill would eliminate current outcome accountability requirements. States would not be required to identify a specified percentage or number of schools as low-performing. However, they would be required to establish a system for school improvement for low-performing public schools receiving Title I-A-1 (Grants to LEAs) funds that would be implemented by LEAs and be designed to address the weaknesses of such schools. While public school choice and SES would no longer be required, the bill would create a new reservation of funds for direct services to students under Section 1003A. That is, states would be required to reserve 3% of the total amount received by the state under Title I-A-1 (Grants to LEAs) to make competitive grants to LEAs to provide public school choice or high-quality academic tutoring that is designed to help increase student academic achievement. With the enactment of NCLB, new requirements were included in Title I-A to ensure an equitable distribution of highly qualified instruction across schools and establish minimum professional standards for what constitutes a highly qualified teacher. NCLB also authorized programs to support efforts to meet the teacher quality requirements, as well as systems that reward teacher performance. These provisions are described below, followed by a discussion of how S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would amend them. Distribution. Current law requires that states ensure Title I schools provide instruction by highly qualified instructional staff and take specific steps to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. Newly hired teachers. Each LEA receiving Title I-A funds must ensure that all newly hired teachers teaching in a program supported by such funds be highly qualified. Highly qualified teacher (HQT). The definition of an HQT has two basic components involving professional credentials and subject-matter knowledge. First, to be deemed highly qualified, a teacher must possess a baccalaureate degree and full state teaching certification. Second, a teacher must demonstrate subject-matter knowledge in the areas that she or he teaches. The manner in which teachers satisfy the second component depends on the extent of their teaching experience and the educational level at which they teach. Deadline. Each state receiving Title I-A funds was required to have a plan to ensure that, by no later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year, all public school teachers teaching in core academic subjects within the state met the definition of an HQT. The plan was required to set annual measurable objectives to meet this deadline. Support. The Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment Fund (Title II-A) provides formula grants to support state and local efforts to meet ESEA teacher quality requirements. Performance. The Teacher Incentive Fund (Title V-D) supports competitive grants for high-need schools to develop and implement performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems that must consider gains in student academic achievement and classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year, among other factors. S. 1094 would retain an HQT definition similar to that in current law and require each LEA receiving Title I-A funds to ensure that all teachers in core academic subjects be HQT. The bill would only apply this requirement to new teachers for LEAs with approved teacher evaluation systems. For the first year after enactment, S. 1094 would retain requirements similar to those in current law regarding the equitable distribution of teachers. For each year after the first year, the bill would require states to provide for the equitable distribution of teachers so that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by "teachers with the lowest ratings in the State professional growth and improvement system." S. 1094 would require states participating in Title II-A to ensure that all LEAs that receive Title II-A funds are implementing teacher and principal evaluation systems, known as professional growth and improvement systems. These systems would have to provide meaningful feedback to teachers and principals, include multiple categories of performance, evaluate teachers and principals on a regular basis, be aligned with professional development activities, be developed and implemented with teacher and principal involvement, and provide training for the evaluators responsible for conducting classroom and school observations. Principal evaluations would be required to be based "in significant part" on evidence of improved student academic achievement and growth and student outcomes, as well as evidence of providing strong instructional leadership and support to teachers and other staff. Principal evaluations may also include other measures of principal performance (e.g., parent and family engagement). Teacher evaluations would be required to be based "in significant part" on evidence of improved student academic achievement and growth "that is limited to evidence-based or externally validated measures," classroom observations, and other measures (e.g., student perception surveys). These systems would be similar to the teacher evaluation system currently used in the Teacher Incentive Fund competitive grant program. S. 1094 would require states to provide technical assistance to LEAs receiving Title II-A funds to support the design and implementation of professional growth and improvement systems. LEAs must implement these systems no later than the 2015-2016 school year. S. 1094 would retain the Title II-A formula grant program; however, the current hold harmless provision for state grants would be eliminated and LEA grants would be held to at least 90% of the previous year allotment. The bill would require that at least 20% of Title II-A funds be used for professional development in "priority" and "focus" schools. Allowable uses include most activities provided under current law as well as the development and implementation of professional growth and improvement systems. H.R. 5 would eliminate current requirements regarding the equitable distribution of instructional quality and highly qualified teachers. The bill would not require states or LEAs to either develop or implement staff evaluation systems. Rather, H.R. 5 would allow states to provide technical assistance to LEAs that choose to develop or implement evaluation systems for teachers or school leaders. LEAs would be allowed to use Title II-A funds for the development and implementation of teacher or school leader evaluation systems and may use student achievement data in such systems. H.R. 5 would retain formula grant funding under Title II-A; however, the enrollment and poverty elements used for allocation would be modified and the hold harmless for state and LEA grants would be eliminated. The new enrollment and poverty elements would only be used in a fiscal year in which the secretary certified to Congress that high poverty LEAs would not receive a smaller amount than in FY2013. Without such certification, funds would be allocated according to current law. The bill would also scale back allowable activities principally including activities that support the development and implementation of state and local evaluation systems for teachers. Under current law, the ESEA includes several formula grant programs that provide grants to states, LEAs, or other entities (e.g., Indian tribes). These programs provide aid to support specific student populations (e.g., disadvantaged students, limited English proficient students), provide additional aid to entities based on their location (i.e., rural LEAs), or provide funds for a specific set of activities (e.g., those related to literacy or school safety). The ESEA also contains numerous competitive grant programs, which generally receive less funding than formula grant programs. The competitive grant programs included in the ESEA address issues such as counseling, arts education, physical education, and magnet schools. As shown in Table 1 , many of the competitive grant programs and some of the formula grant programs included in the ESEA are no longer funded. The HELP Committee and the Education and Workforce Committee have proposed fundamentally different approaches with respect to how to continue to provide program funding through the ESEA. In general, S. 1094 would retain several competitive grant programs, eliminate others, and create new programs to support activities that are currently supported under either formula or competitive grant programs that would be eliminated. H.R. 5 would eliminate some formula grant programs and most competitive grant programs included in current law but would include a block grant program whose funding could potentially be used to support similar activities to those that are supported under programs slated for elimination. The divergent approaches taken by these bills with respect to targeted support and block grants are discussed in more detail below. S. 1094 would retain most of the current formula grant programs, while eliminating several competitive grant programs (see Table 1 ). It would add several targeted grant programs that would broadly support similar activities as those supported under some of the programs being eliminated. For example, the bill would add a new literacy program; a new science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) program; a program to support a well-rounded education, which would fund subject-matter specific activities (e.g., arts, economics); and a program focused on student well-being. The bill would not include a block grant program. H.R. 5 would retain some, but not all, of the existing formula grant programs and would eliminate most competitive grant programs (see Table 1 ). However, H.R. 5 includes a new block grant program (the Local Academic Flexible grant) that would be authorized annually at $2.1 billion and would provide formula grants to states. In contrast, the Innovative Programs grant program, the block grant included under current law, was last authorized at $600 million and last funded at $99 million in FY2007. The new block grant would be designed to support activities aiming to improve academic achievement and protect student safety, and would afford states and eligible entities (which include LEAs) considerable flexibility in how funds are used. Under the new block grant program, states would be required to use at least 75% of the funds received to award competitive grants to eligible entities which include partnerships of LEAs, community-based organizations (CBOs), business entities, and nongovernmental entities. All partnerships would be required to include at least one LEA. In addition, the state would be required to use not less than 10% to award competitive grants to nongovernment entities. States could use funds for state level activities as well. For instance, in addition to using funds for administrative costs, SEAs could use funds for developing standards and assessments, administering assessments, monitoring and evaluating programs and activities receiving funding, providing training and technical assistance, implementing statewide academic focused programs, and sharing evidence-based and other effective strategies. Grants to LEAs and other eligible entities could be used for (1) supplemental student support activities (e.g., before or after school activities, summer school activities, tutoring, expanded learning time) but not athletics or in-school learning activities; and (2) activities to support students (e.g., academic subject specific programs, adjunct teacher programs, extended learning time programs, parent engagement) but not class-size reduction, construction, or staff compensation. States would be required to make awards for both types of activities. Nongovernmental entities would be required to use funds for a program or project to increase the academic achievement of public school students attending a public elementary or secondary school. Thus, it is possible that funds provided under this program could be used to support activities that previously received ESEA support, but which would no longer have a targeted funding stream under H.R. 5 . However, there is no way to know whether a state or an LEA would receive the same amount of funding, less funding, or more funding under the proposed block grant program as it would if programs that would be eliminated under H.R. 5 were retained. Table 1 provides a structural orientation by ESEA title and part of how S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would modify current law based primarily on line-item amounts for ESEA programs included in appropriations tables, as well as the individual programs included under the Fund for the Improvement of Education. This list of "programs" does not take into account the number of programs, projects, or activities that may be funded under a single line-item appropriation, so the actual number of ESEA programs, projects, or activities being supported through appropriations is not shown. Current ESEA programs under which the federal government provides grants to the initial grantee (as opposed to a subgrantee) by formula are noted in the table. The table provides appropriations information for FY2013. It also indicates where S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would place a given program in a reauthorized ESEA if the program is retained. It should be noted that an indication that a program would not be retained does not mean that all of the activities authorized under current law for the program would be eliminated. The activities may be continued under a different program. For example, while H.R. 5 would no longer retain many of the current ESEA programs, it would include a block grant program under which funds could potentially be used for similar activities as were permitted or required under some programs that would not be retained. In addition, the table notes when an existing ESEA program would not be retained but a new, targeted program would address similar broad purposes (e.g., literacy, dropout prevention). At the same time, an indication that a program would be retained does not mean that it would be retained without changes. For example, while both S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would retain a state grant program focused on teachers like Title II-A of the ESEA, both bills would modify the formula used to award grants and would change the uses of funds. In addition, an indication that a program would be retained does not mean that it would be retained under the same name. For example, the Advanced Placement program in current law would be retained as the Accelerated Learning program under S. 1094 . The program would be expanded to include International Baccalaureate programs and exams. Table 2 compares S. 1094 and H.R. 5 to current law. It provides a more detailed description of specific features of each bill. It is arranged thematically, focusing on key issues that have arisen during the reauthorization process. The themes are as follows: Overall structural and funding issues; Accountability; Title I-A; Other issues related to special populations/areas; Teachers, principals, and school leadership; Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education; Flexibility and choice; Other program areas addressed by current law; Programs currently authorized outside of the ESEA and proposed for inclusion in the ESEA; General provisions; and Key changes included in ESEA reauthorization bills to non-ESEA programs/acts. No attempts were made to provide a comprehensive analysis of each of the bills or to compare S. 1094 with H.R. 5 . Table A-1 examines specific ESEA program authorizations included in current law compared with those included in S. 1094 and H.R. 5 . Overall, current law includes 46 specific authorizations compared with 39 in S. 1094 and 16 in H.R. 5 . It should be noted that a single authorization may apply to more than one program. Table A-1 was designed to show the actual number of explicit ESEA program authorizations included in current law and each of the bills. In order to make this table more useful, however, the table notes whether proposed statutory language indicated that certain programs would receive a specific share of a given authorization. For example, H.R. 5 includes only one authorization for Title I-A, but proposed statutory language would provide a specified share of that authorization to multiple, individual programs. A new program authorization under S. 1094 or H.R. 5 should not be interpreted to mean that the program is not authorized under current law. For example, S. 1094 would include separate authorizations for Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grants and for Promise Neighborhoods. Both of these programs are currently funded and were enacted through appropriations language using general authority available to the secretary under the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE; Title V-D-1). Under current law, there is only one authorization for FIE that encompasses 21 subparts, including Title V-D-1, without specifying a share of the authorization for a given subpart. Therefore, under current law, separate authorizations are not listed for the TIF or Promise Neighborhoods program. In general, all of the authorizations included in S. 1094 are for "such sums" for FY2014 and each of the four succeeding fiscal years (i.e., through FY2018). For each authorization included in H.R. 5 , the same amount is authorized for each fiscal year from FY2014 through FY2019. That is, the authorization level is the same for FY2014 as it is for FY2019. It should be noted that the bills do not authorize programs for the same period of time. Given that most of the authorizations in current law and all of the authorizations in S. 1094 are for "such sums as may be necessary," it is not possible to calculate the total amount authorized across current law and S. 1094 . With that said, the total authorized level in H.R. 5 for the ESEA is $22.8 billion. FY2013 appropriations for ESEA under current law are $22.1 billion. The total ESEA authorization for the last year for which current law had authorizations specified was $28.9 billion. It should be noted that an authorization of an appropriation is only an authorization (i.e., authority to appropriate). Congress can and does enact appropriations at funding levels that differ from authorization levels.

Summary:
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). During the 113th Congress, both the House and Senate have considered legislation to reauthorize the ESEA. On June 12, 2013, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee considered and ordered reported the Strengthening America's Schools Act (S. 1094) by a strictly partisan vote of 12-10. The House Education and Workforce Committee also considered and ordered reported a bill that would reauthorize the ESEA. On June 19, 2013, on a strictly partisan vote of 23-16, the Success for All Students Act (H.R. 5) was ordered reported. H.R. 5 was subsequently considered and amended on the House floor. The amended version of H.R. 5 was passed on July 19, 2013, by a vote of 221-207. It is unclear whether S. 1094 will be considered on the Senate floor. S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would take different approaches to reauthorizing the ESEA, most notably in three key areas: 1. Accountability for student achievement: Both S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would modify current accountability requirements related to student achievement, including eliminating the requirement to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) and the requirement to apply a specified set of outcome accountability provisions to all schools, regardless of the extent to which they failed to make AYP. Both bills would continue to require that states have standards and assessments for reading, mathematics, and science. Both bills would require that state assessments measure student academic proficiency, but only S. 1094 would require state assessments to measure student academic growth. Both bills would require that reading and mathematics be included in each state's accountability system, and would permit states to include science or other subjects in their accountability systems. S. 1094, but not H.R. 5, would require states to establish "ambitious and achievable" annual performance targets for the state, local educational agencies (LEAs), and public schools for each subject area and grade level that is assessed for accountability purposes. Performance targets would have to be established for student proficiency and student growth, as well as for English language proficiency for English learners and high school graduation rates. The secretary would have to approve all performance targets. S. 1094 would require various interventions to be implemented in certain low-achieving schools, while H.R. 5 would not require that specific actions be taken to address issues in low-performing schools. 2. Teacher quality versus teacher effectiveness: Both S. 1094 and H.R. 5 scale back (or, in the case of H.R. 5, eliminate) existing teacher quality requirements, and each bill introduces provisions pertaining to the evaluation of teacher and principal performance. H.R. 5 would eliminate current requirements related to "teacher quality," which focus largely on ensuring the equitable distribution of qualified teachers and that teachers possess a baccalaureate degree, full state teaching certification, and demonstrated subject-matter knowledge in the areas in which they teach. S. 1094 would retain these requirements for new teachers and for all teachers until approved teacher evaluation systems are in place. S. 1094 would require all LEAs that receive Title II-A funds to develop and implement teacher and principal evaluation systems, known as professional growth and improvement systems. H.R. 5 would make the development and implementation of teacher and school leader evaluation systems an optional use of Title II-A funds. Under S. 1094, staff being evaluated would have to be evaluated based, in part, on student achievement. Under H.R. 5, evaluation systems would not be required to include student achievement data. 3. Targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of a block grant: Each bill would consolidate some existing competitive grant programs, but H.R. 5 would consolidate a greater number of programs than S. 1094. At the same time, S. 1094 would create several new targeted grant programs, while H.R. 5 would greatly expand the use of block grant funding.