ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Congressional research reportJul 30, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th

Congress: Selected Key Issues

,name redacted,

Specialist in Education Policy

,name redacted,

Specialist in Education Policy

July 30, 2015

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R43916

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Summary

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last comprehensively amended by the

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). During the 114th Congress, the House

Education and the Workforce Committee reported the Student Success Act (H.R. 5), which would

provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. The bill was subsequently passed on

the House floor on July 8, 2015. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)

Committee reported the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 (ECAA; S. 1177), which would also

provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. S. 1177 was subsequently passed on

the Senate floor on July 16, 2015.

H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would make several changes to the ESEA, most notably in six key areas that

have garnered substantial congressional interest.

1. Accountability for student achievement: Both bills would modify current

ESEA accountability requirements related to student achievement, by eliminating

the requirement to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) and the

requirement to apply a specified set of outcome accountability provisions to

failing schools and local educational agencies (LEAs). Both bills would continue

to require that states have standards and assessments for reading, mathematics,

and science. H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would require that state assessments measure

student academic achievement, but measuring student growth would be optional.

Both bills would continue to require that the results of reading and mathematics

assessments be included in a state’s accountability system. Under S. 1177, states

would be required to annually establish state-designed goals for all students and

subgroups of students related to student achievement and high school graduation

rates. Both bills would require states to identify the lowest performing schools

but neither bill would require that a certain number or percentage of schools be

identified as low performing.

2. Distribution of Title I-A grants. The ESEA Title I-A grant program, which

provides supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and

other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with

relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families, is the largest

formula grant program in the ESEA. H.R. 5 would establish a new option for

distributing Title I-A funds to LEAs and schools (commonly referred to as

portability or the state option). S. 1177 would not include a Title I-A portability

option, but it would alter the criteria used to determine the rank order in which

public schools receive Title I-A funds and create a fifth formula that would be

used to determine grants to LEAs.

3. Fiscal accountability. H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would alter existing fiscal

accountability requirements. H.R. 5 would eliminate maintenance of effort

(MOE) requirements. S. 1177 would retain the MOE requirements with changes.

S. 1177 would also alter the supplement, not supplant requirements that apply to

Title I-A funds.

4. Educator quality, equity, and effectiveness: Both H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would

eliminate the current “highly qualified” teacher requirement. H.R. 5 would also

eliminate a provision to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at

higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field

teachers. S. 1177 would retain this provision and replace the term “unqualified”

with “ineffective.” Both bills would allow certain federal funds to be used for the

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

development and implementation of teacher and school leader evaluation

systems. Such systems could include the use of student achievement data to

measure teacher and leader effectiveness.

5. Grants to states and LEAs to support teachers and leaders: Both H.R. 5 and

S. 1177 would amend the current Title II-A formula grant program that provides

funds to support the improvement of school teachers and principals. In addition

to changes in the activities supported, both bills would change current formula

factors that determine how funds are allocated to states and LEAs. S. 1177 would

also reauthorize the current Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), which provides

support for performance-based compensation systems. H.R. 5 would allow for

TIF activities to continue under a new program.

6. Targeted support versus block grants: H.R. 5 would not retain numerous

existing programs and would greatly expand the use of block grant funding. S.

1177 would retain funding for most currently funded formula grant programs but

would not reauthorize several other programs. It would also create a new block

grant program.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

ESEA Flexibility Provided by the Administration .......................................................................... 2

Brief Summary of Reauthorization Approaches in Key Areas ........................................................ 3

Accountability for Student Achievement .................................................................................. 3

H.R. 5 .................................................................................................................................. 5

S. 1177 ................................................................................................................................ 7

Distribution of Title I-A Grants to LEAs and Schools .............................................................. 9

H.R. 5 ................................................................................................................................ 10

S. 1177 .............................................................................................................................. 10

Fiscal Accountability................................................................................................................ 11

Maintenance of Effort ........................................................................................................ 11

Supplement, Not Supplant ................................................................................................ 13

Educator Quality, Equity, and Effectiveness ........................................................................... 14

H.R. 5 ................................................................................................................................ 15

S. 1177 .............................................................................................................................. 15

Grants to States and LEAs to Support Teachers and Leaders ................................................. 15

H.R. 5 ................................................................................................................................ 16

S. 1177 .............................................................................................................................. 17

Targeted Support Versus Block Grant ..................................................................................... 17

H.R. 5 ................................................................................................................................ 18

S. 1177 .............................................................................................................................. 19

Structural Orientation of H.R. 5 and S. 1177 Compared With Current Law ................................. 20

Comparison of ESEA Authorizations of Appropriations Under Current Law, H.R. 5,

and S. 1177 ................................................................................................................................. 28

Non-ESEA Provisions Included in H.R. 5 and S. 1177 ................................................................. 35

H.R. 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 35

S. 1177..................................................................................................................................... 35

Tables

Table 1. Percent of FY2001 Award Each State Would Receive under Title II-A as

Amended by S. 1177 .................................................................................................................. 17

Table 2. ESEA Programs Included in Line-Item Appropriations Tables and

Their Treatment Under H.R. 5 and S. 1177................................................................................ 20

Table 3. Specific Authorizations of Appropriations Under the ESEA and Treatment Under

H.R. 5 and S. 1177 ..................................................................................................................... 29

Contacts

Author Contact Information ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Introduction

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last comprehensively 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 FY2007.1 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 114th Congress, the House Education and the Workforce Committee reported the

Student Success Act (H.R. 5), which would provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the

ESEA. The bill was subsequently passed on the House floor on July 8, 2015, based on a strictly

partisan vote of 218-213.2 The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee

reported the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 (ECAA; S. 1177), which would also provide for a

comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. S. 1177 was subsequently passed on the Senate floor

on July 16, 2015, based on a bipartisan vote of 81-17.3

H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would make several changes to current law, most notably in six key areas that

have garnered extensive congressional interest: (1) accountability for student achievement; (2)

distribution of Title I-A grants to states, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools; (3) fiscal

accountability; (4) educator quality, equity, and effectiveness; (5) grants to states and LEAs to

support teachers and leaders; and (6) targeted support for elementary and secondary education

programs versus the use of a block grant. In addition, both bills would eliminate some existing

programs, while creating new programs.

This report examines major features of H.R. 5 and S. 1177 compared with current law. The report

begins by discussing the approach that each bill takes toward reshaping the ESEA in key areas.

Next, the report considers the ESEA by title and part to examine how the ESEA would be

reconfigured under each bill. This is followed by an examination of proposed program

authorizations included in H.R. 5 and S. 1177. The last section of the report provides an overview

of the changes each bill would make to existing laws and programs and new programs and

provisions that would be enacted outside of the ESEA. The report does not aim to provide a

comprehensive summary of the bills or of technical changes that would be made by either 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 H.R. 5 and S. 1177 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

The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) provided a one-year extension of ESEA program authorizations.

GEPA provides that, “The authorization of appropriations for, or duration of, an applicable program shall be

automatically extended for one additional fiscal year unless Congress, in the regular session that ends prior to the

beginning of the terminal fiscal year of such authorization or duration, has passed legislation that becomes law and

extends or repeals the authorization of such program” (20 U.S.C. 1226a). As Congress did not pass legislation to

reauthorize the ESEA by the end of the 2005 calendar year, the authorizations of appropriations for the programs were

automatically extended through FY2008. While appropriations for ESEA programs are no longer authorized, they

continue to receive annual appropriations. This is considered an implicit authorization of appropriations for the

programs.

For more information, see House Roll no. 423.

For more information, see Senate Record Vote Number 249.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

the bill. For example, the Title II-A program is considered to be retained in H.R. 5 and S. 1177,

despite proposed changes in each bill to the formula used to allocate funds to states and in the

uses of funds. On the other hand, the block grant programs created under H.R. 5 and S. 1177 are

considered new programs, as they both differ 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 or S. 1177.

ESEA Flexibility Provided by the Administration

While Congress has not enacted legislation to reauthorize the ESEA, on September 23, 2011,

President Obama and the Secretary of Education (hereinafter referred to as 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 21st 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.4 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.

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 July 2015, ED had approved ESEA flexibility

package applications for 42 states and the District of Columbia and was reviewing applications

from other states.5 If Congress continues to work on ESEA reauthorization during the 114th

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. 1177 with the provisions included in the ESEA flexibility package.6

Since the announcement of the ESEA flexibility package, ED has made additional waivers available to states. For

example, states may request a waiver to delay the implementation of any personnel consequences for teacher and

school leaders that are related to the new state assessments for up to one year. They may also request a waiver to avoid

“double-testing” students during the transition from their current assessments to their new assessments aligned with

college- and career-ready standards. Related to the testing of students, a state may also request a waiver for schools to

retain their accountability designation for an additional year, during which they would continue to implement the same

interventions. For more information, see the policy letter sent to the Chief State School Officers by Secretary Duncan

on June 18, 2013, available online at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/130618.html.

ED is currently reviewing applications for Iowa and Wyoming. Washington had an approved ESEA flexibility

package but lost its approval in 2014 for failure to meet the second of the four principles established by ED. (See

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/secretary-letters/wad6.html for more information.) Approved state applications and

pending applications are available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html.

For more information about the ESEA flexibility package, see CRS Report R42328, Educational Accountability and

Secretarial Waiver Authority Under Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, by (name redac

ted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Brief Summary of Reauthorization Approaches in

Key Areas

This section of the report examines the reauthorization approaches taken by H.R. 5 and S. 1177 in

six key areas: (1) accountability for student achievement; (2) distribution of Title I-A grants to

states, LEAs, and schools; (3) fiscal accountability; (4) educator quality, equity, and effectiveness;

(5) grants to states and LEAs to support teachers and leaders; and (6) targeted support for

elementary and secondary education programs versus the use of a block grant. For each of the six

areas, a brief discussion of the treatment of the issue under current law is included, followed by a

summary of how H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would address the issues.

Accountability for Student Achievement

Under NCLB, a series of comprehensive standards-based accountability requirements were

enacted. States, 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 H.R. 5 and S. 1177 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). Student performance standards in these subjects

must include at least three performance levels: advanced, proficient, and basic.

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 38 and for at least one grade in grades 10-12. In addition, each state must develop

and administer science assessments aligned with content and achievement

standards at least 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,7 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 apply to the “all

students group” and each subgroup for which data are disaggregated (see below

for a discussion of subgroups), 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 was required to 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: (1) student academic achievement on the required state reading and

mathematics assessments, with a focus on the percentage of students scoring at

Only mathematics and reading must be included for accountability purposes. A state may choose to include other

subjects as well.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues



the proficient level or higher; (2) 95% student participation rates in assessments

by all students and for any subgroup for which data are disaggregated for AYP

determinations; and (3) 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.

Subgroups. Current law establishes a set of student subgroups for accountability

purposes and a set of student subgroups for reporting purposes for which data

must be disaggregated assuming minimum group size requirements are met.8 For

accountability purposes, these subgroups include economically disadvantaged

students, limited English proficient students, students with disabilities, and

students in major racial and ethnic groups as determined by the state. For

reporting purposes, the aforementioned subgroups must be included as well as

subgroups disaggregated by gender and migrant status.

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.9 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

Student groups need not be considered in cases where their number is so relatively small that achievement results

would not be statistically significant or the identity of individual students might be divulged. The selection of the

minimum number (“n”) of students in a group for the group to be considered in AYP determinations has been left

largely to state discretion. Since the same minimum group size policies are applied to schools and to LEAs overall,

groups that are too small to be separately considered for individual schools often meet the minimum group size

threshold at the LEA level.

A school or LEA identified for improvement can exit this status by making AYP for two consecutive years. If a

school or LEA makes AYP for one year, the school or LEA remains at its current improvement status level. If a school

or LEA fails to make AYP the next year, it moves to the next level of consequences.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues



school failed to make AYP in a given year but consequences need only be applied

to schools receiving Title I-A funds.

Limited English proficient (LEP) students.10 In addition to the aforementioned

requirements, all LEP students must be annually assessed to determine their level

of English proficiency with respect to reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

Students with disabilities. Current law requires that students with disabilities be

included in the annual state assessments using reasonable adaptations and

accommodations. Through regulations, ED has established other options for

students with disabilities to participate in state assessments and accountability

systems, most notably alternate assessments based on alternate achievement

standards (AA-AAS) and alternate assessments based on modified achievement

standards (AA-MAS). AA-AAS is intended to be used for students with the most

significant cognitive disabilities.11 While there are no restrictions on the number

of students who can participate in AA-AAS, there are restrictions placed on how

assessment results are included in a state’s accountability system. The number of

proficient and advanced scores derived from students participating in AA-AAS

cannot exceed 1% of all tested students at the LEA or state level. Students with

disabilities who are unlikely to reach grade-level proficiency within the current

school year may participate in AA-MAS. Similar to AA-AAS, there are no

restrictions on the number of students who may participate in AA-MAS, but the

number of proficient and advanced scores derived from students participating in

AA-MAS cannot exceed 2% of all tested students at the LEA or state level.12

H.R. 5

Similar to current law, states would be required to adopt content and achievement standards for

mathematics, reading, science, and any other subject as determined by the state. Assessments for

mathematics and reading would continue to have to be aligned with these standards and would be

administered in each of grades 3-8 and once in grades 9-12. Science assessments would have to

be aligned with state standards and would continue to be administered at least once in grades 3-5,

6-9, and 10-12. States would have the discretion to administer a single annual summative

assessment or multiple assessments throughout the school year that result in a single summative

score. Assessments would have to provide data on student academic achievement. 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 must measure student academic

proficiency and growth against grade level standards and may measure student academic

proficiency and growth above and below those standards. In addition, nothing in H.R. 5 would

prohibit an LEA from administering its own assessments rather than using the state-designed

Current law uses the term “limited English proficient” students. H.R. 5 and S. 1177 refer to these students as English

learners.

For more information about assessments for students with disabilities and ESEA requirements, see CRS Report

R42070, The Education of Students with Disabilities: Alignment Between the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)

The Secretary has proposed amending current regulations to no longer authorize a state to implement AA-MAS. It is

unclear when the Secretary will take final action on the proposal. (For more information on the proposed changes, see

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ED-2012-OESE-0018-0001.) It should be noted that states that have

received approval for the ESEA flexibility package are no longer permitted to implement AA-MAS.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

assessments provided, for example, that the LEA receives state approval to administer the

assessments and the assessments produce data comparable among all LEAs in the state.

Each state would be required to develop and implement a single, statewide accountability system

to ensure that all public school students graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary

education or the workforce without the need for remediation. However, states would no longer be

required to establish AMOs or determine AYP. 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 inclusion of high school graduation rates as an indicator of

student achievement would be optional. However, high school graduation rates would still have to

be publically reported. Similar to current law, only mathematics and reading would be required to

be included in the accountability system.

Student subgroups for accountability purposes would be the same as those used under current

law. For reporting purposes, two additional subgroups would be added to those included under

current law: (1) status as a student with a parent who is an active duty member of the Armed

Forces, and (2) status as a student in foster care.

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 included for accountability purposes.13

However, the bill would allow any students whose parents chose to opt them out of taking the

assessments to be excluded from the calculation when determining whether 95% of students were

assessed. Thus, states, LEAs, and schools would not be penalized for failing to meet the

participation rate requirement due to parents choosing not to have their children take the

assessments required under Title I-A.

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-A14 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. More specifically, states would be required to reserve 3% of the total amount

received by the state under Title I-A to make competitive grants to LEAs to provide public school

choice or high-quality academic tutoring. The bill would not retain the School Improvement

Grant (SIG) program but would require states to reserve 7% (as opposed to 4% under current law)

of their Title I-A funds for school improvement activities provided that doing so does not result in

any LEA receiving a lower Title I-A grant than it did in the prior year.

Unlike current law, H.R. 5 appears to only require the 95% participation rate to apply at the state level rather than at

the school and LEA levels as well. Therefore, data on participation rates may only be available at the state level.

Under H.R. 5, Title I-A would become the Title I-A-1 program. For the purposes of this discussion, the report

continues to refer to the program as the Title I-A program.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

With respect to English learners, each state would be required to establish English language

proficiency (ELP) standards that are derived from the four recognized domains of reading,

writing, speaking, and listening. The ELP standards would have to be aligned with the state’s

academic content standards in reading.15 English learners would continue to be assessed annually

to determine their levels of English proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

H.R. 5 would continue to allow students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to

participate in AA-AAS. The bill does not provide for the continued student participation in AAMAS. States could develop alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most

significant cognitive disabilities. As under current law and regulations, there would be no limit on

the number of students who could participate in AA-AAS. However, there would also be no

limitations on how these students are included in the state accountability system for

accountability determinations. That is, there would be no caps on student participation in AAAAS related to accountability determinations at the LEA or state level.

S. 1177

Similar to current law, states would be required to adopt challenging academic content standards

and aligned academic achievement standards (hereafter referred to as academic standards) for

mathematics, reading, and science, and any other subject as determined by the state. The

standards must include at least three levels of achievement. The state is required to document that

the standards are aligned with the following: (1) entrance requirements, without the need for

academic remediation, for the system of public higher education in the state; (2) relevant state

career and technical education standards; and (3) relevant state early learning guidelines.16

Assessments for mathematics and reading would have to be aligned with these standards and be

administered in each of grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 9-12. Science assessments would

have to be aligned with state standards and would continue to be administered at least once in

grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. Assessments would have to provide data on student academic

achievement and could also measure student academic growth. States would have the discretion

to administer a single annual summative assessment or multiple statewide assessments throughout

the school year that result in a single summative score and valid and reliable information on

individual student academic achievement or growth. States would also be permitted to use

computer adaptive assessments provided that they meet the requirements that apply to all reading,

mathematics, and science assessments required under Section 1111(b)(2)(B) and measure whether

a student is performing above or below the student’s grade level. In addition, each state would be

required to set a limit on the aggregate amount of time devoted to assessments (including those

required under Title I-A, other assessments required by the state, and assessments required

districtwide by LEAs) for each grade.

Each state would be required to implement a single, statewide accountability system to ensure

that all public school students graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education or

the workforce without the need for postsecondary remediation. States would no longer be

required to establish AMOs, determine AYP, or have an “ultimate goal” with associated

consequences toward which states, LEAs, and schools must work. The accountability system

Under Title III-A of current law, states are required to develop standards for English proficiency that are aligned with

the four recognized domains of reading, writing, speaking, and listening and that are also aligned with state academic

content and achievement standards under Title I-A.

The early learning guidelines to which standards are aligned must be those required under Section 658E(c)(2)(T) of

the Child Care and Development Block Grant of 1990.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

would be required to establish annual state-designed goals for all students and each subgroup of

students that take into account the progress necessary for all students and students in each of the

subgroups to graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce

without the need for postsecondary remediation. These goals would have to be established for

academic achievement on the state assessments (mathematics, reading, and science), which may

also include student growth, and high school graduation rates based on the four-year adjusted

cohort graduation rate (currently being used by all states) and, at the state’s discretion, the

extended-year cohort graduation rate. In addition to setting these goals and annually measuring

and reporting on them, states would have to measure and report on (1) an additional academic

indicator for public schools that are not high schools, (2) the English language proficiency of

English learners, and (3) at least one other valid and reliable indicator of school quality, success,

or student supports as determined by the state (e.g., measures of student readiness to enter

postsecondary education or the workforce without the need for remediation or measures of

student engagement).

Student subgroups for accountability purposes would be the same as those used under current

law. S. 1177 would also retain the same subgroups for reporting purposes but for specific

reporting requirements related to student achievement, additional subgroups would be added to

those included under current law: (1) homeless status, (2) status as a student in foster care, and (3)

status as a student with parents who serve in the uniformed services. In addition, for reporting

purposes only, the SEA is required to provide cross-tabulated data on student achievement,

participation in assessments, performance on the other academic indicator, and high school

graduation rates. At a minimum, data must be cross-tabulated by each major racial and ethnic

group, gender, English proficiency, and disability status.

S. 1177 would require the state accountability system to measure the annual progress of not less

than 95% of all students and each of the subgroups of students who are enrolled in the school and

are required to take the assessments. The state must explain how this requirement would be

incorporated into the state-designed accountability system determinations. However, S. 1177

includes a requirement stating that no provision in Title I-A, including the 95% participation

requirement, should be construed as preempting state or local law regarding a parent’s decision to

not have a child participate in the statewide academic assessments requirement under Title I-A. S.

1177, however, does not alter the calculation of the 95% participation rate to adjust for any

students whose parents may have opted them out of testing. As a result, these provisions appear to

be in direct conflict with each other, given that states must meet the 95% participation rate

requirement in order to receive Title I-A funds, but this requirement does not preclude laws

allowing parents to opt out of Title I-A assessments. It is therefore unclear how these

requirements would be enforced by ED if participation rates dropped below 95%.

The accountability system would also have to include a system of “annually identifying and

meaningfully differentiating among all public schools in the SEA.” The system would have to be

based on all the indicators included in the state’s accountability system with assessment results

and graduation rates included as “substantial” factors in the annual identification system. The

weight assigned to any individual indicator in the identification system would be determined by

the state. The SEA would be required to provide a clear and understandable explanation of how

schools are identified and differentiated. An SEA may also identify any middle school or high

school as being in need of intervention and support if at least 40% of the children served by such

school are from low-income families. Based on this system of identification, each SEA would be

required to identify Title I-A participating schools that are in need of intervention or support and

that an “evidence-based intervention or support strategy” designed by the state or LEA be

implemented. Intervention and supports must be prioritized in the identified schools most in need

of such support. Among other things, the intervention and support strategies implemented in an

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

identified school must be implemented in a “manner that is proportional to the specific reasons

for identification,” and must distinguish between the lowest-performing schools and other schools

identified as being in need of intervention and support for other reasons, such as student

subgroups not meeting the annual state-designed goals. S. 1177 would not require the state to

identify a specific number or percentage of schools as low performing.

States would be able to reserve up to 4% of the Title I-A funds received by the state for school

improvement activities unless doing so would result in an LEA receiving a smaller Title I-A grant

than it did during the prior year. Under current law, states are required to reserve the full 4%

unless doing so would result in an LEA receiving a smaller Title I-A grant than it did during the

prior year. In addition, S. 1177 would retain a program that is similar to the current SIG program

that would provide formula grants to states to assist the lowest-performing schools. States would

then make competitive subgrants to LEAs serving identified schools.

With respect to English learners, each state would be required to demonstrate that it has adopted

English language proficiency standards that are aligned with the required state academic

standards for reading and must ensure proficiency in each of the domains for reading, writing,

speaking, and listening. English language proficiency assessments aligned with the English

proficiency standards would be used to assess English learners annually to determine their level

of English proficiency in each of the aforementioned domains.

Under S. 1177, states would continue to be permitted to develop alternate academic achievement

standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. States would also have the

option of administering alternate assessments aligned with alternate academic achievement

standards to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (AA-AAS). However, the

total number of students assessed is a subject using such assessments could not exceed 1% of the

total number of all students in the state who are assessed in that subject. The continued

participation of students in AA-MAS would be prohibited.

S. 1177 would place numerous prohibitions and limitations on the Secretary’s ability to require

that state accountability systems, standards, or assessments meet requirements established by ED.

Some of these prohibitions are already included in current law. For example, no officer or

employee of the federal government may “mandate, direct, or control” a state, LEA, or school’s

“specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessment, curriculum, or

program of instruction” is included in Section 1905 of current law.

Distribution of Title I-A Grants to LEAs and Schools

In addition to the aforementioned accountability requirements associated with Title I-A, Title I-A

is also the largest grant program in the ESEA, funded at $14.4 billion in FY2015. It is designed to

provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students

attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of

students from low-income families. Under current law, ED determines Title I-A grants to LEAs

based on four separate funding formulas.17 After calculating grants, ED provides each state with

information on the grants calculated for LEAs in the state. The state then makes specific

adjustments to the grant amounts, including reserving funds for administration and school

improvement and determining grants for charter schools that are their own LEAs. After making

The four funding formulas include Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance

Incentive Grants (EFIG). For more information about how grants are determined under Title I-A, see CRS Report

RL34721, Elementary and Secondary Education Act: An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas, by (name redac

ted).

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

adjustments to the grant amounts calculated by ED, the state then provides funds to the LEAs.

The LEAs, in turn, distribute funds to schools, often on the basis of the percentage of children in

each school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.18

H.R. 5

Under H.R. 5, a new option for distributing funds from the state level to LEAs and from LEAs to

schools would be available.19 This option is often referred to as the “state option” or “Title I

portability.” Under the state option, Title I-A LEA grants would be calculated by ED using the

four formulas prescribed by current statute. However, once the grants were calculated, each state

would have the option to reallocate the total amount of Title I-A funds that were “earned” by the

LEAs in the state under the current law formulas using a new formula. States would be permitted

to redistribute all of the Title I-A funds received to LEAs based on each LEA’s share of enrolled

eligible children. An eligible child would be defined as a child from a family with an income

below 100% of the poverty level based on the most recent data available from the Department of

Commerce.20 LEAs would, in turn, distribute the funds received to individual public schools in

the LEA based on each school’s share of enrolled eligible children.21 That is, any LEA or any

public school that enrolled at least one eligible child would receive Title I-A funds under the state

option. This is significantly different than current law under which LEAs must meet various

criteria to receive a Title I-A grant and funds are generally provided to schools with relatively

high percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.22

It should be noted that if a state chose to implement the state option, the amount of funding

received by the state under Title I-A would not change. Rather, Title I-A funds would shift only

among the LEAs in a given state. As the state option would use different criteria for determining

LEA grant amounts than under current law, a given LEA could receive a substantial increase or

decrease in its grant amount in comparison to the amount the LEA would receive under current

law. Similarly, schools could also see changes in their grant amounts relative to what they may

receive under current law should a state choose to implement the state option.

S. 1177

S. 1177 would not include a Title I-A portability option. However, S. 1177 would alter the process

by which schools are annually ranked to determine Title I-A grants. While there are several rules

related to Title I-A school selection, under current law, LEAs must generally rank their public

schools by their percentage of students from low-income families, and serve them in rank order.

This must be done without regard to grade span under current law for any eligible school

Children living in households where income is up to 130% of poverty are eligible for free meals. Children living in

households where income is over 130% but up to 185% of poverty are eligible for reduced price meals. For more

information, see Department of Agriculture, “Child Nutrition Programs—Income Eligibility Guidelines,” 80 Federal

For a more detailed discussion of this option, see CRS Report R43929, Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act: H.R. 5 and the State Option, by (name redacted) .

Currently, most schools do not have data available on the number of children from families with an income below

100% of the poverty level.

It appears that Title I-A funds would be provided only to students attending public schools and that private school

students would no longer be served under the Title I-A program as they have been since the enactment of ESEA.

For more information on how Title I-A grants are made to schools, see CRS Report R40672, Education for the

Disadvantaged: Analysis of Issues for the ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas, by (name redacted) .

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

attendance area23 in which the concentration of children from low-income families exceeds 75%.

Below this point, an LEA can choose to serve schools in rank order at specific grade levels (e.g.,

only serve elementary schools in order of their percentage of children from low-income families).

Under S. 1177, LEAs would have to serve elementary and middle schools with more than 75% of

their children from low-income families and high schools with more than 50% of their children

from low-income families before choosing to serve schools in rank order by specific grade levels.

However, no LEA would be required to reduce the amount of funding provided to elementary and

middle schools below the level provided in the fiscal year prior to the enactment of S. 1177 in

order to comply with the proposed requirement related to serving high schools under Title I-A.

In addition, S. 1177 would add a fifth Title I-A funding formula, the Equity Grant formula.24 This

new formula would be similar to the existing Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formula

in that grants would initially be calculated at the state level and then state funds would be

suballocated to LEAs in a given state. However, the proposed formula would use different factors

than the EFIG formula to determine state grant amounts and would alter the calculation of grants

at the LEA level as well.25 The Equity Grant formula would only be implemented if overall

appropriations for Title I-A exceeded $17 billion and would only be used to implement funds in

excess of that amount.

Fiscal Accountability

Both H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would make changes to existing fiscal accountability requirements,

including the maintenance of effort and supplement, not supplant requirements. This section

provides an overview of each fiscal accountability concept followed by a discussion of how H.R.

5 and S. 1177 would alter the relevant requirements.

Maintenance of Effort

Maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements have been included in the ESEA since its enactment

in 1965.26 Under current law, in order for LEAs to receive funds under Title I-A and several other

formula grant programs, they must meet MOE requirements. MOE requires that LEAs provide,

from state and local sources, a level of funding (either aggregate or per pupil) in the preceding

year that is at least 90% of the amount provided in the second preceding year for public

elementary and secondary education. In other words, an LEA will not meet the MOE requirement

if it decreases education spending by more than 10% from year to year.

An eligible school attendance area is the geographical area in which the children who are normally served by a

particular school reside and in which the percentage of children from low-income families is at least as high as the

percentage of children from low-income families served by the LEA as a whole.

The Equity Grant formula was added to S. 1177 by amendment during Senate floor consideration of the bill and is

commonly referred to as “the Burr Amendment.”

For example, the Equity Grant formula would not include the effort factor in the determination of state grant amounts

under the EFIG formula. The effort factor is a ratio of the three-year average state average per pupil expenditures

(APPE) for public K-12 education to the three-year average state personal income per capita income (PCI) divided by

the ratio of the three-year average national APPE to the three-year average national PCI. In addition, in determining

state grant amounts, the Equity Grant formula uses the same expenditure factor for all states rather than allowing the

expenditure factor to vary by state as is done under the EFIG formula. For more information about the EFIG formula,

see CRS Report RL34721, Elementary and Secondary Education Act: An Analytical Review of the Allocation

Formulas, by (name redacted) .

P.L. 89-10, Section 207(c)(2).

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

In general, the ESEA MOE requirements apply to LEAs, not states, and are enforced by SEAs.27

The requirement is based on a comparison of total (i.e., not program-specific) state and local

expenditures for public K-12 education in the preceding fiscal year to those for the second

preceding fiscal year. The requirement can be calculated on either an aggregate or a per pupil

basis, whichever is more favorable to the LEA.

If an LEA fails to meet the ESEA’s MOE requirement, it does not lose all eligibility for grants

under the affected ESEA programs. Rather funding is to be reduced proportionally, based on the

extent to which the requirement is not met. For example, if state and local public K-12 education

expenditures in the preceding year are equal to 85.5% of the amount for the second preceding

year—that is, 95% of the required 90% level—then the ESEA grant is to be reduced by 5%.

When this occurs, the required level of spending for the succeeding year’s calculation is based on

the full 90% level of expenditures, not the actual level of spending. Further, the ESEA’s MOE

requirement can be waived by the Secretary in cases of “(1) exceptional or uncontrollable

circumstances, such as a natural disaster; or (2) a precipitous decline in the financial resources of

the local educational agency.”28

Based on data provided by ED,29 since the enactment of NCLB in 2002, ED has received 778

requests from LEAs to waive MOE. Of these requests, 71% were approved.30 In addition, less

than 10% of the LEAs that requested a waiver or were approved for a waiver requested a second

waiver. According to ED, about 25% of the requests received since 2002 were from LEAs that did

not maintain effort in the July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, period, the first full MOE year after the

recession began in the fall of 2008. During the 2012-2013 school year (most recent data

available), there were over 18,000 LEAs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.31 Thus,

based on the data provided by ED, it appears that a relatively small proportion of these LEAs

requested an MOE waiver from 2002 through 2014.

H.R. 5

H.R. 5 would eliminate the MOE provisions included in the ESEA. This would allow states and

LEAs to receive ESEA funds without any requirements related to their level of spending for

public K-12 education. As states and LEAs currently are able to increase their spending by any

amount or decrease their spending by up to 10% each year, the one new option that the

elimination of MOE would permit is for states and LEAs to decrease their spending for public

education by more than 10% each year. It is not possible to know how many states and LEAs

would choose to reduce their funding for public education by more than 10% each year.

S. 1177

S. 1177 would retain all of the MOE provisions included in current law. However, if an LEA

failed to meet its MOE requirement but had met the requirement for the five immediately

preceding fiscal years, the LEA would not have its funding reduced. In addition, S. 1177 would

include “a change in the organizational structure of the local educational agency” as a second

The one exception is the ESEA Title I-A Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) allocation formula, that has a

separate, state-level MOE requirement (Section 1125A(e)) that mirrors the MOE requirement for LEAs.

Section 9521(c).

Unpublished data were provided to CRS in December 2014 and February 2015.

This is the number of MOE requests and percentage of MOE waivers granted as of November 18, 2014.

Data provided by ED, National Center for Education Statistics, Elementary/Secondary Information System.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

example of exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances for which the Secretary may grant a

waiver of the MOE requirements.32

Supplement, Not Supplant

Supplement, not supplant (SNS) provisions appear to have originated with the 1969 ESEA

amendments (P.L. 91-230). SNS provisions prohibit states and/or LEAs from using federal funds

to provide services or support activities that state and/or local funds provide or purchase currently

or which, in the absence of federal funds, they would provide or purchase.33 Further, no LEA is

required to provide services under Title I-A through a particular instructional method or in a

particular instructional setting in order to demonstrate compliance with the SNS provisions.

While SNS provisions apply to numerous ESEA programs (e.g., School Improvement Grants,

Migrant Education, English Language Acquisition), the focus of this discussion is on the SNS

provisions as they apply to Title I-A, as S. 1177 would specifically alter these provisions.

While MOE compliance is relatively easily defined and monitored, supplanting is arguably more

difficult to define operationally, in part because it may depend on knowing what states or LEAs

may have done in the absence of federal funding. According to ED policy guidance, “any

determination about supplanting is very case specific and it is difficult to provide general

guidelines without examining the details of a situation.”34 There are three conditions under which

it is generally presumed that SNS violations have occurred. These include situations in which:

1. An LEA used Title I-A funds to provide services that the LEA was required to

make available under federal, state, or local law.

2. An LEA used Title I-A funds to provide services that the LEA provided with nonfederal funds in the prior year(s).

3. An LEA used Title I-A funds to provide services for children participating in a

Title I program that the LEA provided with non-federal funds to children not

participating in Title I.

A second set of SNS provisions are included for Title I-A schools that operate schoolwide

programs.35,36 Schools operating schoolwide programs are required to use Title I-A funds to

supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of Title I-A funds, be made available

from non-federal sources for the school, including any funds needed to provide services that are

required by law to students with disabilities and English learners. According to guidance provided

by ED, it is generally an LEA’s responsibility, and not a school’s responsibility, to ensure the SNS

requirement is met and that a school operating a schoolwide program receives all the state and

local funds it would receive if it were not a Title I-A schoolwide program. That is, an LEA cannot

The MOE requirements that apply to states receiving EFIG would also be changed in similar ways.

When making SNS determinations, an LEA or SEA may exclude “State or local funds expended ... for programs that

meet the intent and purposes” of Title I-A. Thus, SNS test need not apply to state or local funds provided under

programs that are similar in nature to Title I-A itself.

U.S. Department of Education, Title I Fiscal Issues: Maintenance of Effort; Comparability; Supplement, Not

Supplant; Carryover; Consolidating Funds in Schoolwide Programs; and Grantback Requirements, February 2008,

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.pdf.

Ibid.

Generally, schoolwide programs are operated in schools in which the percentage of children from low-income

families is at least 40%. During the 2012-2013 school year, the most recent year for which data are available, 74% of

all Title I-A schools operated schoolwide programs. (U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2016 Budget

Summary, 2015, p. 15.)

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

reduce the amount of state or local funds received by a schoolwide program because the school

receives federal funds to operate the schoolwide program. In its guidance, ED states that an LEA

should be able to demonstrate through its regular procedures for distributing funds that state and

local funds are distributed “fairly and equitably” to all schools without regard to the receipt of

federal education funds.

H.R. 5

H.R. 5 would not alter the SNS provisions that currently apply to Title I-A.

S. 1177

S. 1177 would alter the current SNS provisions that apply to Title I-A. Essentially, S. 1177 would

eliminate the first set of SNS provisions that apply to non-schoolwide programs and apply SNS

provisions that are similar to those that currently apply to schoolwide programs to all Title I-A

schools.37 S. 1177 would require that an LEA demonstrate that the methodology used to allocate

state and local funds to Title I-A schools ensures that the school receives all of the state and local

funds it would have received in the absence of Title I-A funds.38 The bill also specifies that LEAs

would not be required to identify that an individual cost or services supported with Title I-A funds

is supplemental. In addition, S. 1177 would maintain the special rule that LEAs are not required

to provide services under Title I-A through a particular instructional method or in a particular

instructional setting to demonstrate the SNS is not being violated.

Educator Quality, Equity, and Effectiveness

With the enactment of NCLB, new provisions were included in the ESEA to establish minimum

professional standards for what constitutes a “highly qualified” teacher and ensure an equitable

distribution of teacher quality across schools. While the ESEA flexibility package waived some

aspects of these requirements, for states with approved ESEA flexibility package applications, it

imposed new obligations to reform systems used to evaluate teacher and leader effectiveness.

Similar reforms were subsequently required for grantees supported by the federal Teacher

Incentive Fund authorized under Title V of the ESEA. These provisions are described below,

followed by a discussion of how H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would amend them.



Teacher quality. Current teacher quality provisions require that teachers possess

a baccalaureate degree, full state teaching certification, and demonstrated

subject-matter knowledge in the areas in which they teach. 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 subjects39 within the state met these requirements.40

The SNS provisions that apply to schoolwide programs under current law are written to apply at the school level as

previously discussed. The SNS provisions included in S. 1177 are focused on state and LEA level and do not address

the use of funds at the school level. As ED noted in its guidance on the current SNS requirements that apply to schools,

however, it is generally the LEA’s responsibility, and not a school’s responsibility, to ensure that the SNS requirement

is met.

The Secretary would be prohibited from establishing “any criterion that specifies, defines, or prescribes the specific

methodology” an LEA uses to allocate state and local funds to Title I-A schools.

Current law defines core academic subjects as English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign

languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.

These plans are available online at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/hqtplans/index.html.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues



Equitable distribution. Current law requires that states ensure Title I-A 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.

Evaluating teacher and leader effectiveness. LEAs in states that have approved

applications for the ESEA flexibility package as well as those receiving support

under the Teacher Incentive Fund must either adopt state-designed educator

evaluation systems or design and implement locally-developed evaluation

systems to identify effective teachers and leaders. These systems must consider

gains in student academic achievement as well as classroom evaluations

conducted multiple times during each school year and must be developed with

the input of teachers and school leaders.

H.R. 5

H.R. 5 would eliminate the current highly qualified teacher requirement as well as the provision

to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by

inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.

H.R. 5 would allow states to use Title II-A funds 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. Use of student achievement data in such systems would not be

required.

S. 1177

S. 1177 would eliminate the current highly qualified teacher requirement and instead require state

plans to include an assurance that all teachers and paraprofessionals working in programs

supported by Title I-A funds meet applicable state certification and licensure requirements,

including alternative certification requirements. The bill would retain the current equitable

distribution provision, but would move it from the state plan to the LEA plan and replace the term

“unqualified” with “ineffective.”

S. 1177 would allow states to use Title II-A funds 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 that are based in part on evidence of student achievement which may

include student growth. S. 1177 would prohibit the Secretary or any other officer or employee of

the federal government from mandating, directing, or controlling any educator evaluation system,

or state or local definitions of effectiveness or professional standards.

Grants to States and LEAs to Support Teachers and Leaders

NCLB authorized a new ESEA program under Title II-A to support efforts to meet the law’s

teacher quality requirements and provide for the training and recruitment of highly qualified

teachers, principals and assistant principals. NCLB also provided authority under Title V-D-1 for

the Secretary to support “nationally significant” programs, which was later used to establish the

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) in FY2006. The program supports pay-for-performance programs

and compensation system reforms.41



Title II-A. The Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment Fund (Title II-A)

provides formula grants to support state and local efforts to improve the quality

of school teachers, principals, and assistant principals through a variety of

activities. The Title II-A allocation formula provides each state with a base

guarantee of funding equal to the amount it received for FY2001 under three

antecedent programs.42 Thirty-five percent of any excess funding is allocated

according to each state’s share of the school-aged population (5-17) and 65% of

the excess is allocated according to each state’s share of the school-aged

population living in poverty. Each state is assured 0.5% of this excess. At the

state level, 95% of the state grant is to be distributed as subgrants to LEAs. Each

LEA gets a base guarantee of the FY2001 amounts and the remainder distributed

by formula. More specifically, 20% of the remainder is allocated according to

each LEA’s share of the school-aged population (5-17) and 80% is allocated

according to each LEA’s share of the school-aged population living in poverty.

Teacher Incentive Fund. The Teacher Incentive Fund (Title V-D-1) provides

competitive grants to LEAs, including charter schools that are LEAs, or states, or

partnerships between (1) a state and/or LEA and (2) at least one nonprofit

organization. TIF grantees are to develop and implement performance-based

teacher and principal compensation systems for high-need schools. These

systems must consider gains in student academic achievement and classroom

evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year, among other

factors and provide educators incentives to take on additional responsibilities and

leadership roles.

H.R. 5

H.R. 5 would amend the Title II-A formula by eliminating the base guarantee for state and LEA

grants. The bill would amend the population and poverty factors so that each would have equal

weight in the allocation of funds. That is, half of the funds would be allocated according to shares

of the school-aged population (5-17) and half would be allocated according to shares of the

school-aged population living in poverty. However, the new population and poverty factors would

only be used in a fiscal year in which the Secretary certified to Congress that LEAs “that serve a

high percentage of students from families with incomes below the poverty line” would not

receive a smaller grant amount than in FY2015.43 Without such certification, funds would be

allocated according to current law. The bill would retain the current 0.5% small state minimum.

H.R. 5 would authorize, but not require, TIF-related activities in a new state formula grant

program under Part B of Title II. Each state would receive an amount equal to its share of the

school-aged population (5-17). No state would receive less than 1% of the amount available for

state grants. A state receiving funds would be required to subgrant 92% of its award to an eligible

entity which may be (1) an LEA or consortium of LEAs; (2) an institution of higher education or

consortium of such institutions in partnership with an LEA or consortium of LEAs; (3) a for41

Congress enacted TIF through the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-149).

The antecedent programs include the Eisenhower Professional Development, Class Size Reduction, and Staff

Assistance programs.

H.R. 5 does not define what is meant by a “high percentage” in this provision.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

profit organization, a nonprofit organization, or a consortium of for-profit or nonprofit

organizations in partnership with an LEA or consortium of LEAs. Grantees may use funds for

activities similar to TIF—such as differential pay, performance-based pay, and career ladders.

However, grantees may instead use Title II-B funds for other activities not related to TIF—such

as preparation academies, recruitment of mid-career non-teaching professionals, and professional

development.

S. 1177

S. 1177 would amend the base guarantee and formula factors in the Title II-A formula. The base

guarantee for state grants would be a declining fraction of the amount each state received in

FY2001. S. 1177 would eliminate the base guarantee for LEA grants. Table 1 displays the percent

of FY2001 awards each state would receive as its base guarantee under the bill.

Table 1. Percent of FY2001 Award Each State Would Receive under Title II-A as

Amended by S. 1177

Fiscal Year

Percentage of FY2001

Award

2016

85.71%

2017

71.42%

2018

57.13%

2019

42.84%

2020

28.55%

2021

14.26%

2022 and succeeding years

0.00%

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on an analysis of S. 1177 as reported.

The bill would amend the Title II-A state grant population and poverty factors to equal the current

factors for LEA grants. That is, 20% of the funds would be allocated according to each state’s

share of the school-aged population (5-17) and 80% would be allocated according to each state’s

share of the school-aged population living in poverty. The bill would retain the current 0.5%

small state minimum.

S. 1177 would authorize the TIF program under Title II-B and retain the competitive grant

structure and eligible entities in current law. Unlike H.R. 5, S. 1177 would not allow Title II-B

funds to be used for non-TIF activities. Instead, grantees would be required to develop,

implement, improve, or expand performance-based compensation systems or human capital

management systems. As part of these systems, grantees may use funds to develop or improve

evaluation of teacher, principal, and school leader performance; conduct outreach to improve

support for evaluation; improve principal and school leader authority over human capital

decision-making; and provide differential pay and career ladders.

Targeted Support Versus Block Grant

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

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

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). One formula grant program, Innovative Programs,

is authorized to provide block grants to states and LEAs to implement a variety of activities. 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 school counseling, arts education, physical education, charter schools, and magnet

schools. As shown in Table 2, many of the competitive grant programs and some of the formula

grant programs included in the ESEA are no longer funded in FY2015.

H.R. 5

H.R. 5 would retain some, but not all, of the existing formula grant programs and would eliminate

most competitive grant programs (see Table 2). However, H.R. 5 includes a new block grant

program (the Local Academic Flexible grant) that would be authorized annually at $2.3 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 program would support activities designed to

improve academic achievement and student engagement 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 grants44 to eligible entities which include partnerships of LEAs,

community-based organizations (CBOs), institutions of higher education (IHEs), business

entities, and nongovernmental entities.45 All partnerships would be required to include at least one

LEA. In addition, the state would be required to use not less than 8% of the funds received to

award competitive grants to nongovernmental entities.46 Under H.R. 5, SEAs may reserve not

more than 17% of the funds received for state activities and administration. 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, sharing evidence-based and other effective strategies, awarding grants for

blended learning projects, auditing state assessments, and developing and implementing a plan to

improve the state assessment system.

Grants to 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; (2) activities to support students (e.g., academic

subject specific programs, extended learning time programs, dual enrollment, parent engagement)

but not class-size reduction, construction, or staff compensation; and (3) accountability-based

All eligible entities that submit an application that meets the statutory requirements would receive a grant of at least

$10,000.

A single LEA is not eligible to apply for a grant. An LEA must apply in partnership with a CBO, IHE, business

entity, or nongovernmental agency. A consortium of LEAs must also partner with at least one of the aforementioned

types of organizations. A CBO or IHE must apply in partnership with an LEA and may also partner with a business

entity or nongovernmental entity. Similarly, a business entity must apply in partnership with an LEA, and may also

partner with a CBO, IHE, or nongovernmental agency.

The bill specifies that nongovernmental entities include public or private organizations, community-based or faithbased organizations, and business entities. Nongovernmental entities are not required to enter into a partnership with an

LEA or other entity.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

activities designed to enhance school safety. In addition, an eligible entity that receives a grant

may also use the funds to conduct an audit of the local assessments administered by the LEA and

develop and implement a plan to improve the local assessment system. All eligible entities that

submit an application that meets the requirements of the grant application process would receive a

grant of at least $10,000. An LEA could only receive one grant award per year, but the grant

could support multiple projects.

Grants to nongovernmental entities would be required to be used for a program or project to

increase the academic achievement of public school students attending a public elementary or

secondary school. Grantees would be required to provide non-federal matching funds of not less

than 50% of the grant amount.

It is possible that funds provided under this program could be used to support activities that are

currently permitted under the ESEA, 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.

S. 1177

S. 1177 would retain most formula grant programs that received funding in FY2015. At the same

time, it would eliminate several competitive grant programs (see Table 2). The bill would create a

block grant program, the Safe and Healthy Students program, which would be a new program

under Title IV-A. The block grant program would be designed to “improve students’ safety,

health, and well-being, and academic achievement during and after the school day ... ” Funds

would be provided to states by formula, and states would subsequently make formula grants to

LEAs. LEAs would be required to conduct a needs assessment prior to applying for funds that

takes into account school-level data on indicators or measures of school quality, climate and

safety, and discipline, as well as risk factors in the community, school, family, or “peer-individual

domains” that are known to be predictive of various behaviors (e.g., violent behavior) and that

have an effect on the physical and mental health and well-being of youth in the school and

community.

Under this program, funds could be used in ways previously required or permitted by several

ESEA programs. For example, LEAs would be permitted to use funds under the program to foster

safe and drug-free environments; provide extended learning opportunities, including before and

after school programs; provide school-based mental health services; provide school counseling

programs; provide structured physical education programs; and provide programs and activities

that offer a “well-rounded educational experience.” LEAs would also be permitted to use the

funds for other activities and programs identified as necessary based on the needs assessment

conducted by the LEA that “will increase student achievement and otherwise meet the purposes

of this part.”

It is possible that funds provided under this program could be used to support activities that are

currently permitted under the ESEA, but which would no longer have a targeted funding stream

under S. 1177. 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 S. 1177 were retained. In addition, several

of the activities for which Title IV-A funds could be used would also be allowable uses of funds

under other programs included in S. 1177 such as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers,

Elementary and Secondary School Counseling, and Physical Education programs.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Structural Orientation of H.R. 5 and S. 1177

Compared With Current Law

Table 2 provides a structural orientation by ESEA title and part of how H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would

modify current law based primarily on line-item amounts for ESEA programs included in

appropriations tables.47 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 FY2015. It also indicates where H.R. 5 and S.

1177 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 and S. 1177 would no longer

retain many of the currently authorized ESEA programs, both bills 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.

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 H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would retain Title II-A, a state

grant program focused on teachers, both bills would modify the formula used to award grants and

would change the uses of funds.

Table 2. ESEA Programs Included in Line-Item Appropriations Tables and

Their Treatment Under H.R. 5 and S. 1177

Current Law

Program

Statutory

Citation

FY2015

Appropriation

($ in thousands)

Treatment Under

S. 1177, as Passed

by the Senate

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Section 1114(c)

Would be retained

as Title I-A-1

Would be retained

as Title I-A

School

Improvement

Grants (formula

grant)

Title I, Section

1003(g)

Title I-A Grants to

Local Educational

Agencies (LEAs;

formula grant)

Title I-A

Reading First

(formula grant)

Title I-B-1

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Early Reading First

Title I-B-2

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Even Start (formula

grant)

Title I-B-3

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

$505,756

Treatment Under

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House

$14,409,802

Table 2 also includes all 21 subparts of Title V-D, the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE).

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law

Program

Statutory

Citation

FY2015

Appropriation

($ in thousands)

Treatment Under

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House

Treatment Under

S. 1177, as Passed

by the Senate

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Improving Literacy

through School

Libraries

Title I-B-4

Migrant Education

Program (formula

grant)

Title I-C

$374,751

Would be retained

as Title I-A-2

Would be retained

as Title I-C

Neglected and

Delinquent

(formula grant)

Title I-D

$47,614

Would be retained

as Title I-A-3

Would be retained

as Title I-D

National

Assessment of

Title I

Title I-E (Section

1501)

$710

Would be retained

as Title I-B

Would be retained

as Section 9601(b)a

Striving Readers

Title I-E (Section

1502)

$160,000

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Title II-D

Close Up

Fellowships

Title I-E (Section

1504)

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Comprehensive

School Reform

Title I-F

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Advanced

Placement

Title I-G

$28,483

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Title V-E

School Dropout

Preventionb

Title I-H

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund (Grants to

States, LEAs, and

Eligible

Partnerships;

formula grant)

Title II-A

$2,349,830

Would be retained

as Title II-A

Would be retained

as Title II-A

School Leadership

Title II-A-5 (Section

2151(b))

$16,368

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Advanced

Credentialing

Title II-A-5 (Section

2151(c))

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Math and Science

Partnerships

(formula grant)c

Title II-B

$152,717

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Transition to

Teaching

Title II-C-1-B

$13,700

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

National Writing

Project

Title II-C-2

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Civic Education

(We the People)

Title II-C-3 (Section

2344)

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law

Program

Statutory

Citation

FY2015

Appropriation

($ in thousands)

Treatment Under

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House

Treatment Under

S. 1177, as Passed

by the Senate

Cooperative

Education

Exchange (Civic

Education)

Title II-C-3 (Section

2345)

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Teaching of

Traditional

American History

Title II-C-4

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Title II-C, Section

2302

Educational

Technology

Title II-D

Would not be

retainedd

Would not be

retainede

Ready to Learn

Television

Title II-D-3

$25,741

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Title V-F

English Language

Acquisition

(formula grant)

Title III-A

$737,400

Would be retained

as Title I-A-4

Would be retained

as Title III

Safe and Drug

Free, State Grants

(formula grant)

Title IV-A-1

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Safe and Drug

Free, National

Programs

Title IV-A-2

$70,000

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Alcohol Abuse

Reduction

Title IV-A-2 (Section

4129)

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Mentoring

Programs

Title IV-A-2 (Section

4130)

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

21st Century

Community

Learning Centers

(formula grant)

Title IV-B

$1,151,673

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Title IV-Bf

Innovative

Programs (block

grant, formula

grant)

Title V-A

Would not be

retainedg

Would not be

retainedh

Charter School

Grants

Title V-B-1

$253,172i

Would be retained

as Title III-A-1

Would be retained

as Title V-A

Charter School

Facilities Incentive

Grants

Title V-B-1 (Section

5205(b))

(included in Charter

School Grants)

Would be retained

as Title III-A-1

Would be retained

as Title V-A

Credit

Enhancement

Initiatives to Assist

Charter School

Facility Acquisition,

Construction, and

Renovation

Title V-B-2

(included in Charter

School Grants)

Would be retained

as Title III-A-1

Would be retained

as Title V-A

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law

Program

Statutory

Citation

FY2015

Appropriation

($ in thousands)

Treatment Under

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House

Treatment Under

S. 1177, as Passed

by the Senate

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Voluntary Public

School Choice

Title V-B-3

Magnet Schools

Assistance

Title V-C

$91,647

Would be retained

as Title III-A-2

Would be retained

as Title V-B

Fund for the

Improvement of

Education,

National Programs

Title V-D-1

$38,000

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retainedj

Teacher Incentive

Fundk

Title V-D-1

$230,000

Would not be

retainedl

Would be retained

as Title II-B

Preschool

Development

Grantsk

Title V-D-1

$250,000

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Promise

Neighborhoodsk

Title V-D-1

$56,754

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Title V-L

Academies for

American History

and Civics

Title V-D-1

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Title II-C, Section

2303

Elementary and

Secondary School

Counseling

Title V-D-2

$49,561

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Title IV-C

Character

Education

Title V-D-3

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Smaller Learning

Communities

Title V-D-4

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Reading is

Fundamental

Title V-D-5

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Javits Gifted and

Talented

Title V-D-6

$10,000

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Title V-C

Star Schools

Program

Title V-D-7

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Ready to Teach

Title V-D-8

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Foreign Language

Assistance

Title V-D-9

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Carol M. White

Physical Education

Program

Title V-D-10

$47,000

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Title IV-D

Community

Technology

Centers

Title V-D-11

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law

Program

Statutory

Citation

FY2015

Appropriation

($ in thousands)

Treatment Under

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House

Treatment Under

S. 1177, as Passed

by the Senate

Exchanges with

Historic Whaling

and Trading

Partners

Title V-D-12

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Excellence in

Economic

Education

Title V-D-13

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Grants to Improve

the Mental Health

of Children, Mental

Health Integration

in Schools

Title V-D-14 (Section

5541)

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Grants to Improve

the Mental Health

of Children,

Foundations for

Learning

Title V-D-14 (Section

5542)

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Arts in Education

Title V-D-15

$25,000

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retainedm

Parental Assistance

and Local Family

Information

Centers

Title V-D-16

Would not be

retainedn

Would not be

retainedn

Combating

Domestic Violence

Title V-D-17

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Healthy, HighPerformance

Schools

Title V-D-18

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Grants for Capital

Expenses of

Providing Equitable

Services for Private

School Students

Title V-D-19

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Additional

Assistance for

Certain Local

Educational

Agencies Impacted

by Federal

Property

Acquisition

Title V-D-20

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Women’s

Educational Equity

Act

Title V-D-21

Would not be

retained

Would not be

retained

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law

Program

Statutory

Citation

FY2015

Appropriation

($ in thousands)

Treatment Under

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House

Treatment Under

S. 1177, as Passed

by the Senate

Grants for State

Assessments and

Enhanced

Assessment

Instruments

(formula and

competitive

grants)o

Title VI-A-1 (Section

6111)

$378,000

Would not be

retained

Would be retained

as Title I-B

Small, Rural School

Achievement

Program (formula

grant)

Title VI-B-1

$84,920

Would be retained

as Title I-A-5-A

Would be retained

as Title VI-B-1

Rural and LowIncome School

Program (formula

grant)

Title VI-B-2

$84,920

Would be retained

as Title I-A-5-B

Would be retained

as Title VI-B-2

Indian Education,

Grants to LEAs

(formula grant)

Title VII-A-1

$100,381

Would be retained

as Title V-A-1

Would be retained

as Title VII-A-1

Special Programs

and Projects to

Improve

Educational

Opportunities for

Indian Children

Title VII-A-2

$17,993

Would be retained

as Title V-A-2

Would be retained

as Title VII-A-2

Indian Education,

National Activities

Title VII-A-3

$5,565

Would be retained

as Title V-A-3

Would be retained

as Title VII-A-3

Native Hawaiian

Student Education

Title VII-B

$32,397

Would be retained

as Title V-C

Would be retained

as Title VII-B

Alaska Native

Student Education

Title VII-C

$31,453

Would be retained

as Title V-B

Would be retained

as Title VII-C

Impact Aid,

Payments Relating

to Federal

Acquisition of Real

Property (formula

grant)

Title VIII (Section

8002)

$66,813

Would be retained

as Title IV, Section

4002

Would be retained

as Title VIII, Section

8002

Impact Aid,

Payments for

Eligible Federally

Connected

Children (Basic

Support Payments;

formula grant)

Title VIII (Section

8003(b))

$1,151,233

Would be retained

as Title IV, Section

4003(b)

Would be retained

as Title VIII, Section

8003(b)

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law

Statutory

Citation

Program

FY2015

Appropriation

($ in thousands)

Treatment Under

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House

Treatment Under

S. 1177, as Passed

by the Senate

Impact Aid,

Payments for

Eligible Federally

Connected

Children

(Payments for

Children with

Disabilities;

formula grant)

Title VIII (Section

8003(d))

$48,316

Would be retained

as Title IV, Section

4003(d)

Would be retained

as Title VIII, Section

8003(d)

Construction

(formula and

competitive grant)p

Title VIII (Section

8007)

$17,406

Would be retained

as Title IV, Section

4007

Would be retained

as Title VIII, Section

8007

Facilities

Maintenance

Title VIII (Section

8008)

$4,835

Would be retained

as Title IV, Section

4008

Would be retained

as Title VIII, Section

8008

New Programs Included in H.R. 5

Teacher and

School Leader

Flexible Grant

Would be included

as Title II-B

Family Engagement

in Education

Programs

Would be included

as Title III-A-3

Would be included

as Title IV-E

Local Academic

Flexible Grant

(block grant)

Would be included

as Title III-B

New Programs Included in S. 1177

Improving Science,

Technology,

Engineering, and

Mathematics

(STEM) Instruction

and Achievement

Would be included

as Title II-E

Safe and Healthy

Students: Grants

to States and Local

Educational

Agencies (block

grant)

Would be included

as Title IV-A

Family Engagement

in Education

Programs

Would be included

as Title III-A-3

Would be included

as Title IV-E

Grants for

Education

Innovation and

Research

Would be included

as Title V-D

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law

Statutory

Citation

Program

FY2015

Appropriation

($ in thousands)

Treatment Under

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House

Treatment Under

S. 1177, as Passed

by the Senate

Innovative

Technology

Expands Children’s

Horizons (I-TECH)

Would be included

as Title V-G

Literacy and Arts

Education

naj

Would be included

as Title V-H

Early Learning

Alignment and

Improvement

Grants

Would be included

as Title V-I

Full-Service

Community

Schools

naj

Would be included

as Title V-K

Native American

and Alaska Native

Language

Immersion Schools

and Programs

Would be included

as Title VII-D

Source: Table prepared by CRS, based on CRS analysis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (most

recently amended by P.L. 107-110), H.R. 5, and S. 1177. FY2015 appropriations data for all programs was

provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service.

Notes: An indication that a program would be retained does not mean that the program would not be modified

or have its name changed. An indication that a program would not be retained does not mean that all of the

activities authorized under current law would be eliminated. They may be included in a different program.

a. S. 1177 would continue to provide for the evaluation of Title I programs. Unlike current law, however, S.

1177 would not specify issues to be examined.

b. This program is also referred to as the High School Graduation Initiative.

c. This is a formula grant program when appropriations equal or exceed $100 million. Otherwise, competitive

grants are made to eligible partnerships.

d. Title IX of H.R. 5 would authorize the Schools of the Future Act, which would support technology-based

learning. This program would not be part of the ESEA.

e. S. 1177 would create a new program focused on education technology.

Under S. 1177, using funds for extended learning time would be added as an allowable use of funds. States

can currently use 21st Century Community Learning Centers program funds for this purpose under the

ESEA flexibility package.

g. H.R. 5 would create a new block grant program.

h. S. 1177 would create a new block grant program.

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) required that up to

$11,000,000 of the amount appropriated for the Charter School Program be used for Charter School

Facilities Incentive Grants and at least $13,000,000 be used for Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist

Charter School Facility Acquisition, Construction, and Renovation.

The Title V-D-1 authority under current law is used to authorize several programs including the Teacher

Incentive Fund and Promise Neighborhoods. Several programs authorized under this authority are not

included as line items on appropriations tables. Rather, they generally appear in the explanatory statement

that accompanies the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies annual

appropriations act. For FY2015 appropriations, the explanatory statement indicated that funds should be

provided for the Innovative Approaches to Literacy program. This program would be retained through the

new Literacy and Arts Education program created under S. 1177. The explanatory statement also indicated

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

that funds should be provided for Full-Service Community Schools. This program would be retained as the

Full-Service Community Schools program in S. 1177.

This program was enacted through appropriations language using authority available to the Secretary under

ESEA Title V-D-1.

While H.R. 5 would not retain the Teacher Incentive Fund program, funds under the Title II-B program that

would be created under H.R. 5 could be used for similar activities.

S. 1177 would create a new arts education program under the Literacy and Arts Education program.

H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would create a new program focused on family engagement in education.

The majority of funds are provided to states through formula grants. A relatively small portion of the funds

are provided to states through Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments, a competitive grant program.

Under this program, 40% of funds appropriated are to be awarded by formula and 60% are to be awarded

through competitive grants. In recent years, appropriations bills have directed that all the funds be used

either for formula or competitive grants.

Comparison of ESEA Authorizations of

Appropriations Under Current Law, H.R. 5, and S.

1177

Table 3 examines specific ESEA program authorizations of appropriations included in current

law48 compared with those included in H.R. 5 and S. 1177.49 Overall, current law includes 46

specific authorizations of appropriations compared with 16 in H.R. 5 and 41 in S. 1177. It should

be noted that a single authorization of appropriations may apply to more than one program. Table

3 was designed to show the actual number of explicit ESEA program authorizations of

appropriations included in current law, H.R. 5, and S. 1177. 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 of appropriations. For example,

H.R. 5 includes only one authorization of appropriations for Title I-A, but proposed statutory

language would provide a specified share of that authorization of appropriations to multiple,

individual programs.

For each authorization of appropriations included in H.R. 5 with the exception of Title II, the

same amount is authorized for each fiscal year from FY2016 through FY2019. That is, the

authorization of appropriations level is the same for FY2016 as it is for FY2019 for non-Title II

programs. For programs authorized under Title II, the authorization of appropriations period

extends from FY2016 through FY2021 and would be the same amount for each fiscal year.

For S. 1177, all authorizations of appropriations are “such sums as may be necessary” and most

programs have authorizations of appropriations for FY2016 through FY2021.50 That is, no

FY2007 was the last year for which ESEA programs had authorizations included in statutory language. While ESEA

programs are no longer authorized, they continue to receive annual appropriations. This is considered an implicit

authorization of the programs.

H.R. 5 also includes an authorization of appropriations for the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education program. The

authorization would be for $65,042,000 for each of FY2016 through FY2021. S. 1177 provides an authorization of

appropriations for this program of “such sums as may be necessary.” These authorizations of appropriations are not

included in the discussion of ESEA authorizations of appropriations, as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education

program is not an ESEA program.

The Innovative Technology Expands Children’s Horizons program does not have years specified for the

authorization of appropriations. That is, the program has a permanent authorization of appropriations.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

specific dollar amounts have been specified for any of the programs that would be authorized by

S. 1177.

The total authorized level of appropriations in H.R. 5 for the ESEA is $23.2 billion. FY2015

appropriations for the ESEA under current law are $23.1 billion. The total ESEA authorization for

the last year for which current law had authorizations (FY2007) specified was $28.9 billion. It

should be noted that an authorization of an appropriation is only authority to appropriate funds.

Congress can and does enact appropriations at funding levels that differ from authorization levels.

Table 3. Specific Authorizations of Appropriations Under the ESEA and Treatment

Under H.R. 5 and S. 1177

Current Law

Program

Statutory Citation

for Program

FY2007

Authorizationc

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House, for

FY2016 through

FY2019a

S. 1177, as passed

by the Senate, for

FY2016 through

FY2021b

School

Improvement

Grants

Title I, Section

1003(g)

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Such sums

Title I-A Grants to

Local Educational

Agencies (LEAs)d:

Basic Grants,

Concentration

Grants, and

Targeted Grants

Title I-A

$25,000,000,000 (for

all four grants,

including Education

Finance Incentive

Grants, see below)

Would receive

91.44%

($14,854,577,047) of

a single authorization

for programs serving

special populations

under Title I-Ad

Such sums

Title I-A Grants to

LEAs: Education

Finance Incentive

Grants (EFIG)

Title I-A

Such sums (but

included in total

authorization amount

for Title I-A as well,

see above)

Would be included in

the authorization for

the other Title I-A

Grants to LEAs (see

above)

Would be included

in the authorization

for the other Title IA Grants to LEAs

(see above)

Reading First

Title I-B-1

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Early Reading First

Title I-B-2

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Even Start

Title I-B-3

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Literacy Through

School Libraries

Title I-B-4

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Migrant Education

Title I-C

Such sums

Would receive 2.45%

($398,006,494) of a

single authorization

for programs serving

special populations

under Title I-Ad

Such sums

Neglected and

Delinquent

Title I-D

Such sums

Would receive 0.31%

($50,360,005) of a

single authorization

for programs serving

special populations

under Title I-Ad

Such sums

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law

Program

Statutory Citation

for Program

FY2007

Authorizationc

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House, for

FY2016 through

FY2019a

S. 1177, as passed

by the Senate, for

FY2016 through

FY2021b

Evaluation and

Demonstration

Title I-E, Section

1501 and 1502

Such sums

National Assessment

would be authorized

at $710,000

Such sums (two

authorizations of

appropriations)e

Close Up

Fellowships

Title I-E, Section

1504

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Comprehensive

School Reform

Title I-F

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Advanced

Placement

Title I-G

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Such sums

Dropout

Prevention

Title I-H

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Teacher Quality

State Grants

Title II-A

Such sums

Would receive 75%

($2,091,267,000) of a

single authorization

for teacher and

principal programs

under Title IIf

Such sums

Teacher Quality

National Programs

Title II-A

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Such sums

Mathematics and

Science

Partnerships

Title II-B

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Transitions to

Teaching

Title II-C-1

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

National Writing

Project

Title II-C-2

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Civic Education

Title II-C-3

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Teaching of

Traditional

American History

Title II-C-4

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would share an

authorization of

appropriations with

the Presidential and

Congressional

Academies for

American History

and Civics under

Title II-C

Education

Technology

Title II-D-1 and 2

Such sums

Would not be

authorizedg

Would not be

authorizedh

Ready-to-Learn

Television

Title II-D-3

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Such sums

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law

Program

Statutory Citation

for Program

FY2007

Authorizationc

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House, for

FY2016 through

FY2019a

S. 1177, as passed

by the Senate, for

FY2016 through

FY2021b

English Language

Acquisition and

Instruction

Title III-A and B

Such sums

Would receive 4.6%

($747,277,498) of a

single authorization

for programs serving

special populations

under Title I-Ad

Such sums

Emergency

Immigrant

Education

Title III-B-4

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Safe and Drug-Free

Schools and

Communities State

Grants

Title IV-A-1

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Safe and Drug-Free

Schools and

Communities

National Programs

Title IV-A-2

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

21st Century

Community

Learning Centers

Title IV-B

$2,500,000,000

Would not be

authorized

Such sums

Innovative

Programs (block

grant)

Title V-A

$600,000,000

Would not be

authorizedi

Would not be

authorizedj

Charter Schools

Title V-B-1

Such sums

$300,000,000

Such sums

Credit

Enhancement

Initiatives to Assist

Charter School

Facility Acquisition,

Construction, and

Renovation

Title V-B-2

No authorizationk

Would be authorized

as part of the

authorization for the

Charter Schools

program (see above)

Would be authorized

as part of the

authorization for the

Charter Schools

program (see above)

Voluntary Public

School Choice

Title V-B-3

$100,000,000

Would not be

authorized

Would not be

authorized

Magnet Schools

Title V-C

Such sums

$91,647,000

Such sums

Fund for the

Improvement of

Educationl

Title V-D

$675,000,000

Would not be

authorized

Such sums (seven

authorizations of

appropriations)m

National

Assessment of

Educational

Progress

nan

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Such sums

State Assessments

Title VI-A-1

Such sums

Would not be

authorized

Such sums

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law

Program

Statutory Citation

for Program

FY2007

Authorizationc

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House, for

FY2016 through

FY2019a

S. 1177, as passed

by the Senate, for

FY2016 through

FY2021b

Rural Education

Achievement

Program

Title VI-B

Such sums

Would receive 1.2%o

($194,941,956) of a

single authorization

for programs serving

special populations

under Title I-Ad

Such sums

Indian Education

Grants to LEAs

Title VII-A-1

Such sums

$105,921,000

Such sums

Indian Education

Special Programs

and National

Activities

Title VII-A-2 and 3

Such sums

$24,858,000

Such sums

Education for

Native Hawaiians

Title VII-B

Such sums

$34,181,000

Such sums

Alaska Native

Education

Title VII-C

Such sums

$33,185,000

Such sums

Impact Aid Federal

Property

Title VIII, Section

8002

Such sums

$66,813,000

Such sums

Impact Aid Basic

Support Payments

Title VIII, Section

80003(b)

Such sums

$1,151,233,000

Such sums

Impact Aid

Children with

Disabilities

Title VIII, Section

8003(d)

Such sums

$48,316,000

Such sums

Impact Aid

Construction

Title VIII, Section

8007

Such sums

$17,406,000

Such sums

Impact Aid

Facilities

Maintenance

Title VIII, Section

8008

Such sums

$4,835,000

Such sums

New Authorizations of Appropriations Included in H.R. 5

Teacher and

School Leader

Flexible Grant

Would receive 25%

($697,089,000) of a

single authorization

for teacher and

principal programs

under Title IIf

Family Engagement

in Education

$25,000,000

Such sums.

Local Academic

Flexible Grant

(block grant)

$2,302,287,000

New Authorizations of Appropriations Included in S. 1177

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law

Program

Statutory Citation

for Program

FY2007

Authorizationc

H.R. 5, as Passed

by the House, for

FY2016 through

FY2019a

S. 1177, as passed

by the Senate, for

FY2016 through

FY2021b

Improving Science,

Technology,

Engineering, and

Mathematics

(STEM) Instruction

and Achievement

Such sums

Safe and Healthy

Students: Grants

to States and Local

Educational

Agencies (block

grant)

Such sums

Family Engagement

in Education

$25,000,000

Such sums

Grants for

Education

Innovation and

Research

Such sums

Innovative

Technology

Expands Children’s

Horizons (I-TECH)

Such sumsb

Literacy and Arts

Education

Such sums

Early Learning

Alignment and

Improvement

Grants

Such sums

Native American

and Alaska Native

Language

Immersion Schools

and Programs

Such sums

Source: Table prepared by CRS, based on CRS analysis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (most

recently amended by P.L. 107-110), H.R. 5, and S. 1177.

Notes: Proposed authorizations were aligned with authorizations included in current law if the proposed

authorizations would authorize programs that are similar to those included in current law. It should be noted

that the lack of a proposed authorization for a particular program does not necessarily mean that required or

allowable activities under that program may no longer be supported. “Such sums” means “such sums as may be

necessary.” It should be noted that H.R. 5 would authorize appropriations for the McKinney-Vento Homeless

Education program at $65,042,000. S. 1177 provides an authorization of appropriations for this program of “such

sums as may be necessary.” The authorizations of appropriations for this program are not discussed in this

report, as this program is not part of the ESEA.

na: Not applicable.

a. The authorization of appropriations for FY2016 through FY2019 would be the same each year for a given

program not authorized under Title II. Similarly, the authorization of appropriation for FY2016 through

FY2021 for programs authorized under Title II would be the same each year for a given program.

b. The Innovative Technology Expands Children’s Horizons program does not have years specified for the

authorization of appropriations. The program has a permanent authorization of appropriations.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

FY2007 was the last year for which ESEA programs had authorizations of appropriations included in

statutory language. The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) provided a one-year extension of ESEA

program authorizations. GEPA provides that, “The authorization of appropriations for, or duration of, an

applicable program shall be automatically extended for one additional fiscal year unless Congress, in the

regular session that ends prior to the beginning of the terminal fiscal year of such authorization or duration,

has passed legislation that becomes law and extends or repeals the authorization of such program” (20

U.S.C. 1226a). As Congress did not pass legislation to reauthorize the ESEA by the end of the 2005 calendar

year, the program authorizations were automatically extended through FY2008. While appropriations for

ESEA programs are no longer authorized, they continue to receive annual appropriations. This is considered

an implicit authorization of appropriations for the programs.

Under H.R. 5, five programs would share a single authorization of appropriations. These programs include

Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs, Migrant Education, Neglected and Delinquent, English

Language Acquisition, and Rural Education. The total authorization of appropriations for each year from

FY2016 through FY2019 would be for $16,245,163,000. Each of the five programs would receive a share of

the overall, single authorization. The individual shares are noted in the table.

S. 1177 includes a specific authorization of appropriations for conducting evaluations of Title I programs

(Section 1002(e)) and for the Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation (Section 2003(e)), which is

similar to the current Striving Readers program. Both the evaluation of Title I programs and the Striving

Readers program currently share a single authorization of appropriations under current law.

Under H.R. 5, the Teacher Quality State Grants program and the Teacher Preparation and Effectiveness

program would share a single authorization. The total authorization for each fiscal year for FY2016 through

FY2019 would be $2,788,356,000.

Title IX of H.R. 5 would authorize the Schools of the Future Act, which would support technology-based

learning. This program would not be part of the ESEA. The act, however, does not appear to include an

authorization of appropriations.

S. 1177 would create a new program focused on education technology.

H.R. 5 would provide an authorization of appropriations for a new block grant program.

S. 1177 would provide an authorization of appropriations for a new block grant program.

The Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter School Facility Acquisition, Construction, and

Renovation program had a separate authorization for FY2002 and FY2003 only. It has continued to receive

appropriations each fiscal year.

Under current law, a single authorization under Title V-D covers programs included in Title V-D-1 through

Title V-D-21. Title V-D-1 provides the Secretary with the authority to support “nationally significant

programs.”

Under current law, a single authorization under Title V-D covers programs included in Title V-D-1 through

Title V-D-21. S. 1177 would retain seven programs currently authorized under Title V-D and provide each

program with its own authorization of appropriations: (1) Teacher Incentive Fund (Section 2003(c)); (2)

Presidential and Congressional Academies for American History and Civics (Section 2003(d), which would

share an authorization of appropriations with the Teacher of Traditional American History program; (3)

Elementary and Secondary School Counseling (Section 4301(h)); (4) Physical Education Program (Section

4407); (5) Javits Gifted and Talented Education program (Section 5307); (6) Full-Service Community Schools

(Section 5918); and (7) Promise Neighborhoods (Section 5930).

NAEP is not an ESEA program; rather, it is authorized under the National Assessment of Educational

Progress Authorization Act. However, as participation in NAEP is a requirement for states to receive

funding under ESEA Title I-A if the Secretary pays for the test administration, current law included an

authorization of funds for NAEP. H.R. 5, while still requiring states to participate in NAEP if the Secretary

pays for the test administration in order to receive funds under Title I-A-1, does not include an

authorization of funds for NAEP. S. 1177 would include an authorization of appropriations for NAEP.

The Small, Rural School Achievement Program would receive 0.6% ($97,470,978) of the total amount

authorized for Title I-A. The Rural and Low-Income School Program would also receive 0.6% ($97,470,978)

of the total amount authorized for Title I-A. Under current law, appropriations provided for rural education

are divided evenly between these two programs per Section 6234.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Non-ESEA Provisions Included in H.R. 5 and S. 1177

Both H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would include non-ESEA provisions that would affect existing laws or

programs, create new programs, and add non-funding related provisions to law. Below is a brief

overview of these provisions.

H.R. 5

Title VII would amend provisions of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act related to the

Education for Homeless Children and Youths program. It would authorize appropriations for the

program for FY2016 through FY2019 at $65,042,000 each year.

Title VIII (Miscellaneous Provisions) would enact a variety of provisions addressing disparate

issues. Title VIII includes the following:



A sense of Congress related to school staff suspected of or proven to have

committed sexual misconduct.

A provision preventing the improper use of taxpayer funds with respect to grants

and subgrants made under the ESEA.

A provision requiring ED to conduct monitoring and oversight of the use of

ESEA funds by grantees and subgrantees.

A prohibition on the use of ESEA funds for excess payments to certain retirement

or pension systems.

A sense of Congress related to the free exercise of religion on elementary and

secondary school grounds.

Title IX would authorize the Schools of the Future Act, which would provide competitive grants

to eligible partnerships to support technology-based learning. No authorization of appropriations

was included for the program.

S. 1177

Title X-A would amend provisions of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act related to

the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program. It would authorize appropriations for

the program for FY2016 through FY2021 at “such sums as may be necessary.”

Title X-B would include several provisions addressing a variety of issues. Title X-B includes the

following:



A provision providing guidance related to the use of the term “highly qualified”

in other laws.51

A provision requiring the identification of the number of ED staff who worked on

or administered each program and project authorized under the ESEA prior to the

enactment of S. 1177 and the number of full-time equivalent employees who

work on or administer programs or projects that would be eliminated by S. 1177.

A provision requiring a report on ED actions in response to two Inspector

General reports on charter schools.

H.R. 5 would include a provision related to this issue in ESEA Title IX.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues



A provision requiring a Comptroller General study on increasing the

effectiveness of services and programs intended to benefit children.

The posthumous pardon for John Arthur “Jack” Johnson to expunge a “raciallymotivated abuse of prosecutorial authority” of the federal government and in

recognition of his “athletic and cultural contributions ... to society.”

The reauthorization of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, which

authorizes an SEA to waive eligible statutory or regulatory requirements

applicable to specified programs for any LEA, educational service agency, or

school in the state.

Title X-C would enact the American Dream Account Act, which would create a personal online

account for low-income students that monitors higher education readiness and includes a college

savings account. The program would be authorized at “such sums as may be necessary” for

FY2016 through FY2020. Title X-C would also authorize a report on Native American language

medium education.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Education Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

(name redacted)

Specialist in Education Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.