A. Elementary and Secondary Education
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), closely followed the four pillars of education reform proposed by President Bush.
First, the new law greatly strengthens accountability for results in Federal elementary and secondary education programs. States must set challenging standards in reading and mathematics and develop statewide annual adequate yearly progress (AYP) objectives that will result in all groups of students achieving proficiency within 12 years. These objectives must be met by all groups of students, disaggregated by poverty, race and ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency. States must conduct annual reading and math assessments for all students in grades 3-8, and States, school districts, and schools must report annually on their progress in helping all groups of students to reach proficiency. Biennial State participation in the State-level version of the National Assessment of Educational Progress will provide benchmarks for gauging the rigor of State standards and assessments.
School districts and schools that fail to make AYP will, over time, be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet State standards. To ensure that no student is trapped in a chronically failing school, districts must provide such students with an option to transfer to a better public school or, if schools fail to improve, to obtain supplemental educational services from a public- or private-sector provider. Schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards.
Second, NCLB provides unprecedented State and local flexibility and reduced red tape in the operation of Federal elementary and secondary education programs. For example, States and local school districts now may transfer up to 50 percent of the funding they receive under four major State formula grant programs to any one of the programs, or to Title I. In addition, new flexibility demonstration programs would permit up to 7 States and 150 school districts to enter into performance agreements allowing them to consolidate all funding from certain formula grant programs for any educational purpose authorized under the ESEA. The covered programs include Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities. Participating States would even be permitted to consolidate their Title I, Part A administrative funding with other State level funds.
Third, the reauthorized ESEA will better focus Federal education resources on proven educational methods. For example, the $10 billion Title I Grants to LEAs program now requires instructional strategies, school improvement plans, professional development, and assistance to low-performing schools to be based on methods proven effective through scientifically based research. In addition, the new Reading First State Grants and Early Reading First program will help States and local communities use activities drawn from scientifically based reading research, such as professional development in evidence-based reading instruction, to help all children learn to read at grade level by the end of the third grade.
And fourth, the NCLB Act will expand choices for parents, particularly for parents of students in chronically failing schools. Parents of students in Title I schools identified for improvement (failing to meet State adequate yearly progress standards for 2 consecutive years) will have the option, beginning in fall 2002, to transfer their children to a better-performing public school, which may include a public charter school. If their school continues to fail to meet State standards for a third year, parents would be permitted to use Title I dollars to obtain supplemental educational services from the State-approved public- or private-sector provider of their choice (including faith-based organizations). NCLB also includes provisions to help expand the number of public charter schools available for parents seeking educational options for their children.
The President's 2003 budget for elementary and secondary education provides significant resources in support of these reform principles. Highlights include:
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes supplemental programs to enable educationally disadvantaged children, particularly those attending schools in high-poverty areas, to meet the same challenging State academic standards as other children. For example, Title I supports more individualized instruction, fundamental changes in the school to improve teaching and learning, and preschool education. Children of migrant agricultural workers and students in State institutions for neglected and delinquent children and youth also receive Title I services.
The 2003 request includes $11.4 billion, a $1 billion increase, for Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs). Grants to LEAs is the largest Title I program and will serve an estimated 15 million students in 46,500 schools in 2003. The request would allocate all of the increased funds through the Targeted Grants formula, which focuses greater resources on the highest-poverty schools and students, consistent with the principles of the President's No Child Left Behind education reform initiative and recommendations of the 1999 National Assessment of Title I.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) reauthorized the ESEA to incorporate nearly all of the Title I reforms proposed by President Bush, particularly in the areas of assessment, accountability, and school improvement. The new law requires States to develop standards in reading and math, and assessments linked to those standards for all students in grades 3-8. LEAs and schools must use Title I funds for activities that scientifically based research suggests will be most effective in helping all students meet these State standards.
States also must develop annual adequate yearly progress (AYP) objectives that will result in all groups of students achieving proficiency in reading and math within 12 years. These objectives must be met by all groups of students, disaggregated by poverty, race and ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency. Biennial State participation in the State-level version of the National Assessment of Educational Progress will provide benchmarks for gauging the rigor of State standards and assessments.
The NCLB Act also requires LEAs to permit students in schools that fail to meet annual State AYP objectives for two consecutive years to transfer to a better public school, with transportation provided by the school district. If schools continue to fail to meet AYP, students will be permitted to use Title I funds to obtain educational services from the public- or private-sector provider selected by their parents from a State-approved list.
The new law requires schools identified for improvement (after failing to make AYP for two consecutive years) to develop improvement plans incorporating strategies from scientifically based research. Schools that fail to improve would be subject to increasingly tough corrective actions—such as replacing school staff or significantly decreasing management authority at the school level—and could ultimately face restructuring, which involves a fundamental change in governance, such as a State takeover or placement under private management. To help States, districts, and schools carry out needed improvements, the NCLB Act significantly increases the statutory reservation of Part A allocations that States must use for school improvement.
The new law also authorizes State Academic Achievement Awards to schools that significantly close achievement gaps or exceed AYP standards for two or more consecutive years, as well as awards to teachers in such schools. However, NCLB Act punishes States that fail to put in place systems of standards, assessments, and accountability by permitting—and in some cases requiring—the Secretary to withhold a portion of Federal funds provided for the administration of Title I.
This program provides formula grants to States to pay the cost of developing both standards and assessments required by the NCLB Act and, if a State already has put in place such standards and assessments, to pay for the administration of those assessments. Funds also may be used to develop standards and assessments in subjects other than those required by the NCLB Act and to improve the reliability and validity of assessment systems. Other allowable uses include paying the costs of working in voluntary partnership with other States to develop standards and assessments, professional development aligned with State standards and assessments, and support for data reporting and other components of the new State accountability systems.
The foundation for the strengthened accountability in Federal elementary and secondary education programs required by the NCLB Act is annual State assessment in reading and mathematics for all students in grades 3-8. These assessments will provide parents the information they need to know how well their child is doing in school and how well the school is educating their child. School districts will use assessment results to make sure that all schools and students are making adequate yearly progress toward State content and performance standards, and that no groups of students are left behind. States would use assessment results to measure the performance of school districts and schools and to identify schools needing improvement under school improvement and corrective action provisions of the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program.
Under the NCLB Act, States will select and design their own assessments, so long as they are aligned with State academic achievement standards. The new assessments must be in place by the 2005-2006 school year. The 2003 request will provide $380 million for Grants for State Assessments, an increase of $10 million over the 2002 level and the same as the statutory 2003 "trigger amount." Failure to provide this amount could result in delays in implementation.
The request would also provide $7 million for a second round of Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments, a program that complements the formula-based Grants for State Assessments by making competitive grants to States, or consortia of States, to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments.
1Appropriated as Reading and Literacy Grants under the Reading Excellence Act
President Bush made the implementation of the Reading First initiative one of his highest priorities for education because of compelling evidence that far too many young people are struggling through school without having mastered reading, the most essential and basic skill. On the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 60 percent of all fourth graders in high-poverty schools scored below the "basic" reading level. Research shows that students who fail to read well by fourth grade have a greater likelihood of dropping out and a lifetime of diminished success. For these reasons, providing consistent support for reading success from the earliest age has critically important benefits. These include helping improve reading gains, reducing the number of children who fall behind in reading, providing additional help to children who need it, and reducing the number of children referred to special education programs based on low reading scores.
The request includes $1.075 billion for the two components of Reading First. The Reading First State Grants program is a comprehensive, nationwide effort to implement the findings of high-quality scientifically based reading research on school reading instruction. This high-quality instruction will help the Nation's schools reach the President's goal of ensuring that every child can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade. The request would provide an increase of $100 million or 11.1 percent for his program. In his original No Child Left Behind education blueprint, the President committed to providing $5 billion for Reading First over a 5-year period. The Administration's fiscal year 2003 request will keep the Federal Government on track toward meeting that goal.
Funds are used to help school districts and schools provide professional development in reading instruction for teachers and administrators, adopt and use reading diagnostics for students in kindergarten through third grade to determine where they need help, implement reading curricula that are based on recent findings of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and provide reading interventions for young grade-school children to ensure they can read at grade level by the end of the third grade.
Early Reading First complements Reading First State Grants by providing $75 million in competitive grants to school districts and non-profit organizations to support activities in existing pre-school programs designed to enhance the verbal skills, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and pre-reading skills of children from birth through age 5. Funds would be targeted to communities with high numbers of low-income families.
A $50 million reduction for the Even Start family literacy program would permit a retargeting of resources for early childhood literacy to the Reading First State Grants program, which focuses on direct instruction grounded in scientifically based research to improve the academic skills of students in kindergarten through third grade. Mixed evaluation results for Even Start support the lower request level.
The request provides sufficient funds for current Even Start projects and for national activities that focus directly on strengthening the early childhood education component of the program to help young children in families served by Even Start enter school ready to learn to read.
The budget provides level funding of $396 million for Migrant Education to meet the unique needs of nearly 800,000 children of highly mobile migrant agricultural workers. Migrant grants help States to identify migrant children, pay the higher costs often associated with serving those children, and employ methods such as distance-learning to reach migrant farmworker communities. The request also includes $48 million for the Title I Neglected and Delinquent (N&D) program to maintain services to children and youth in State-operated institutions.
Level funding for this program would help schools develop and implement comprehensive school reform programs that are based on reliable research and effective practices. Funds are allocated to States, which then make competitive subgrants for up to three years to schools participating in Title I programs, with a priority on low-performing schools that have been identified for improvement. The 2003 request would provide sufficient funds to support awards made in prior years under the Title I CSR authority, and enable States to make more than 660 new awards to schools eligible for funding under Part A of Title I.
The No Child Left Behind Act consolidated funding from the Class Size Reduction and Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants into a new Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program. The 2003 request includes $2.85 billion for the program, the same as the 2002 level. This streamlined program of performance-based grants provides sufficient flexibility for States and LEAs to strengthen the skills and knowledge of their teachers and administrators and help build a high-quality teaching force. States will be held accountable for ensuring that all children are taught by effective teachers and for improving student achievement.
States may support other activities to improve teacher quality, including changes to teacher certification or licensure requirements, alternative certification, tenure reform, merit-based teacher performance systems, differential and bonus pay for teachers in high-need subject areas, and teacher mentoring programs.
With one exception, the budget includes no funding for Improving Teacher Quality National Activities because these activities can be conducted by States and LEAs with State formula grant funds. The exception is the $15 million request to continue Early Childhood Educator Professional Development grants, which addresses an emerging priority on training preschool and other early childhood educators to help ensure that young children enter school ready to learn to read. This program provides professional development, especially in the area of teaching pre-reading skills to young children, for early childhood educators and caregivers working in high-poverty communities.
While upgraded infrastructure now permits most teachers to access technology in their classrooms, few teachers have the knowledge, skills, and curricula needed to use technology effectively to improve student achievement. The 2003 request includes $700.5 million for Educational Technology State Grants, which supports State, district, and school efforts to integrate technology into the classroom. States receive formula grants, then allocate half of the funds to districts by formula and the remainder competitively to high-need districts, or consortia that include such a district, in partnership with an entity having expertise in integrating technology into the curriculum. Districts use their funds for such activities as training teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum and serve as technology experts in their schools, developing and implementing high-quality information technology courses, and purchasing effective technology-based curricula.
The request also includes $22 million, the same as the 2002 level, for the Ready-to-Learn Television program, which supports the development and distribution of educational video and related materials for preschool children, elementary school children, and their parents in order to facilitate student academic achievement. Funding has supported the development of 2 highly acclaimed children's shows, Between the Lions and Dragon Tales, along with a bilingual newsletter that provides suggestions for books and learning activities related to PBS children's programs. Activities supported through Ready-to-Learn play an important role in helping to ensure that young children are prepared to start school.
No funding is provided for Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology, which duplicates activities funded by the Educational Technology State Grants and Improving Teacher Quality State Grants programs.
This program helps communities establish or expand community learning centers that provide extended learning opportunities for students and related services to their families. The request would enable districts to provide after-school learning opportunities—particularly for children who attend high-poverty or low-performing schools—to about 1.3 million students. Recent research has found that effective schools use extended learning time in reading and mathematics to improve student achievement.
States receive formula grants, then make competitive awards of at least $50,000 each to school districts, community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, and other public or private entities for projects that would serve primarily students who attend schools eligible to operate a Title I schoolwide program. States give priority to projects serving students who attend schools identified for improvement or corrective action under Title I, and projects emphasize activities that prepare students to meet State and local student performance standards in core academic subjects. States may reserve up to 5 percent for State-level activities, including providing technical assistance and training and evaluating program effectiveness.
The request supports a streamlined, flexible, performance-based formula grants program, authorized under Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that replaces a complex series of categorical grants to school districts and institutions of higher education. These grants will enable States to design and implement, for the first time, a Statewide response to the needs of limited English proficient (LEP) students to help narrow the achievement gap between those students and other students. In exchange for flexibility in implementing high-quality language instruction programs, States and districts are required to show progress in helping LEP students learn English and make steady gains in academic achievement.
The No Child Left Behind Act establishes comprehensive new accountability provisions in both Title I and Title III that specifically address accountability for LEP students. Under Title I, States will be required to set adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals for the achievement of all children as well as specific groups of children, including children with limited English proficiency. If a school fails to meet the annual goals for any group, including LEP students, it will be identified for school improvement.
The AYP goals will be based primarily on results of State reading and mathematics assessments. While LEP students can be exempted for up to three years from taking reading assessments written in English, once they have been in the schools of a local educational agency (LEA) for a year they must be tested, in reading and mathematics, in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data on their achievement. States will be required to include information on the achievement of LEP children in the "report cards" they produce under the Act, and to report annually to the Department on the achievement and gains in English proficiency of those children. States also must annually assess English proficiency for LEP students beginning with the 2002-03 school year.
In addition, under Title III, each State will be required to develop annual measurable objectives to track student progress in learning English and LEA success in making adequate yearly progress for LEP children. States must hold LEAs accountable for reaching these objectives, and must provide technical assistance to, enter into corrective action plans with, or terminate assistance to, districts that fail to meet them.
The statute includes a set-aside for National Activities to fund discretionary grants to institutions of higher education to prepare teachers to serve LEP students and a national clearinghouse to collect and disseminate information useful to practitioners in improving services for LEP students. Also, before making formula grants, the Department must reserve funds to pay continuation costs for awards made under the prior law for bilingual education instructional services and professional development programs.
Formula grants to States are based on the numbers of LEP and immigrant students. The number of LEP children attending American schools has grown dramatically—primarily because of immigration—with State educational agencies reporting that LEP enrollment rose from 2.1 million in the 1990-91 academic year to more than 3.6 million in 1998-99. Much of this growth is in States and school districts that previously enrolled only a handful of these students. As the number of LEP children has grown, the need for programs and trained staff to serve those children has grown accordingly.
For 2003, the request includes $644.3 million for the program, including $472 million for State Grants and $172 million for National Programs. The $103 million decrease eliminates funding for three National Activities that received funding in 2002, including Community Service for Expelled or Suspended Students, Alcohol Abuse Reduction, Mentoring, and other activities. Changes in the reauthorized ESEA also require States to develop a definition of a "persistently dangerous school," report on safety on a school-by-school basis, and provide victims of serious school-based crimes and students trapped in persistently dangerous schools the option to transfer to a safe alternative.
This program makes grants to State and local educational agencies that provide flexible funding for promising, evidence-based education reforms that meet the educational needs of all students. School districts may use funds to reduce class size, provide professional development, pay for Title I supplemental services, support smaller learning communities, and other activities.
This program increases public school choice options by supporting the planning, development, and initial implementation of public charter schools. A total of 37 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have charter school laws that exempt such schools from most education rules and regulations in exchange for greater accountability for improving student performance. The number of charter schools nationwide has grown from 250 to more than 2,100 in the past few years. The $200 million request would support about 1,800 new and existing charter schools and enhanced dissemination activities at schools with a demonstrated history of success.
Expanding the number of charter schools is a key Administration strategy for increasing the options available to parents seeking the best educational opportunities for their children. A major obstacle to the creation of charter schools in many communities is the limited ability to obtain suitable academic facilities. The new Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program would help overcome this problem by providing $100 million in grants to public and nonprofit entities to leverage funds to help charter schools purchase, construct, renovate, or lease academic facilities.
Level funding for this program would support approximately 62 continuation grants to local educational agencies to operate magnet schools that are part of a court-ordered or federally approved desegregation plan to eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools. Magnet schools address their desegregation goals by providing a distinctive educational program that attracts a diverse student population.
For the 2003 budget, the Administration is proposing a new Choice Demonstration Fund to support research projects that develop, implement, and evaluate innovative approaches to providing parents with expanded school choice options, including both private and public school choice. State educational agencies, school districts, institutions of higher education, and other entities could use funds to design and test innovative approaches, including those to provide expanded school choice options for specific populations, such as low-achieving or secondary-school students.
The proposal responds to several recent studies, including Making Money Matter: Financing America's Schools, a 1999 National Research Council study that identified the need for research projects that determine conclusively the effects of providing parents with expanded school choice options
The request continues funding for this program, which supports efforts to establish intradistrict and interdistrict public school choice programs to provide parents, particularly parents whose children attend low-performing public schools, with greater choice for their children's education. Grant funds support planning and implementation costs associated with new programs, tuition transfer payments to public schools that students choose to attend, and efforts to expand the capacity of schools to meet the demand for choice.
The request level-funds Advanced Placement (AP) programs, which the NCLB Act transferred from the Higher Education Act to Title I of the ESEA. The program makes grants to State educational agencies to pay test fees for low-income students taking approximately 75,000 AP tests. The program also supports State and local efforts to make challenging courses more widely available to low-income students, including the use of distance learning technologies to offer advanced placement programs in small or isolated high-poverty schools that cannot currently provide access for their students to such classes.
This program makes competitive grants to school districts to promote the teaching of traditional American history in elementary and secondary schools as a separate academic subject. In each of the program's first 2 years (2001 and 2002), as a start-up strategy, the Department made 3-year grants from a single year's appropriation. In fiscal year 2003, the Department plans to return to the traditional practice of funding grants in annual increments. Consequently, the request would fund the same number of projects as in 2002.
The request continues funding at the 2002 level for this program, which is designed to improve academic achievement in mathematics and science by promoting strong teaching skills for elementary and secondary school teachers. The program provides grants to partnerships of State educational agencies, higher education institutions, and school districts for activities such as the development of rigorous mathematics and science curricula, distance learning programs, and incentives to recruit college graduates with degrees in math and science into the teaching profession.
Funds are used to support the Department of Defense Troops-to-Teachers program that provides the preparation and support needed to encourage retiring military personnel to teach in high-poverty school districts. Since 1994, Troops-to-Teachers has placed almost 4,000 former military personnel in teaching positions nationwide. Teachers recruited through Troops-to-Teachers are twice as likely as traditional public school teachers to teach in such high-need subject areas as mathematics, science, and special education.
This program addresses the national challenge of training and recruiting more than 2 million teachers over the next 10 years—due to the retirements of long-time teachers, high attrition rates among new teachers, and booming enrollments—by supporting partnerships to train and place highly qualified professionals as teachers in America's classrooms.
The request provides second-year for this program, created by the NCLB Act, that helps school districts provide students with increased access to up-to-date school library materials and highly qualified school library media personnel. Increasingly, school library media centers are linked to computers in classrooms, and they can play a strategic role in enhancing the educational impact of student access to, and use of, information.
FIE gives the Secretary authority to support nationally significant programs to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education at the State and local levels, and to help all students meet challenging State academic content and student achievement standards. The types of programs that may be supported include scientifically based research, development, and evaluation designed to improve student academic achievement and strategies for effective parent and community involvement; programs at the State and local levels that are designed to yield significant results; and the identification and recognition of high-performing schools and programs.
The 2003 request would provide $35 million for Programs of National Significance to fund a small number of projects that show promise for improving American education, including $15 million for new teacher quality initiatives. Awards under this activity are made on the basis of announced competitions. Funds may also be used to support meritorious unsolicited proposals.
The budget also continues funding for Character Education, investing $25 million in grants to States and school districts for such activities as developing character education curriculum, implementing model character education programs that involve parents and community members, including private and nonprofit organizations, and training teachers to incorporate character-building lessons and activities into the classroom. Programs must be integrated into classroom instruction, consistent with State academic content standards, and coordinated with other State education reforms. Elements of character include such items as caring, civic virtue and citizenship, justice, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, and giving.
The request would provide $24 million, the same as the 2002 level, for the Reading is Fundamental/Inexpensive Books Distribution program, which is administered through a contract with Reading is Fundamental, Inc. (RIF), a nonprofit organization affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution. RIF allocates funds to local community associations that select and distribute inexpensive books to children free-of-charge. RIF currently reaches about 3.7 million children through 6,000 projects.
Finally, consistent with the Administration's intent to increase resources for high-priority programs by eliminating small categorical programs that have limited effect, the budget terminates funding for 12 programs authorized under FIE and funded in fiscal year 2002. Each of these programs funds activities that may be supported, at the discretion of local school districts, through other larger and more flexible Federal programs, such as Title IV-A Innovative Program State Grants.
This program provides formula grants to States to facilitate the enrollment of homeless students in school and give them access to services available to other children, such as preschool programs, special education, gifted and talented programs, and vocational education. States subgrant most funds to local educational agencies for tutoring, transportation, and other services that help homeless children to enroll in, attend, and succeed in school.
Since this program began in 1988, nearly all States have revised their laws, regulations, and policies to improve educational access for homeless students. States have typically eased residency requirements and improved transportation and immunization policies to ensure greater access for homeless students. Nevertheless, homeless children and youth continue to be at significant risk of educational failure and the $50 million request would maintain support for State and local activities designed to reduce that risk.
The High School Equivalency Program (HEP) funds projects to help low-income migrant and seasonal farm workers gain high school diplomas or equivalency certificates. The College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) provides stipends and special services such as tutoring and counseling to migrant students who are in their first year of college. Both programs have demonstrated high success rates. In 1998-99, approximately 73 percent of HEP participants completed their GED and 88 percent of CAMP students completed their first year of college in good standing. Almost 74 percent of CAMP participants eventually graduate from college.
The request would enable HEP to serve about 8,600 migrant students, while the number of CAMP participants would be about 2,500.
Indian Education programs supplement the efforts of State and local educational agencies, and Indian tribes, to improve educational opportunities for Indian children. The programs link these efforts to broader educational reforms underway in States and localities to ensure that Indian students benefit from those reforms and achieve to the same challenging academic standards as other students.
The request provides level funding for Grants to Local Educational Agencies, which provide funds to public and BIA-supported schools for activities to improve the educational achievement of Indian students. The request also provides level funding for Special Programs for Indian Children, including $7 million to continue the American Indian Teacher Corps, which will support training for 1,000 Indian teachers over a five-year period to take positions in schools that serve concentrations of Indian children. Also included is $12 million to improve educational opportunities for Indian children through demonstration grants in areas such as early childhood education, dropout prevention, and school-to-work programs.
Finally, the request provides $5.2 million to implement a comprehensive research agenda currently in final development that responds to the national need for better education of Indians. This agenda focuses on filling gaps in national information on the educational status and needs of Indians, and on identifying educational practices that are effective with Indian students.
The Education for Native Hawaiians program provides supplemental education services and activities for Native Hawaiians. The request includes sufficient funding to continue program grants and services to the Hawaiian Natives, many of whom perform below national norms on achievement tests of basic skills in reading, science, math, and social science. Other Department elementary and secondary education programs, particularly the State formula grant programs, also support improved achievement for Native Hawaiians.
The Alaska Native Education Equity program provides educational services to meet the special needs of Native Alaskan children. Program grants focus on meeting the special needs of Alaska Native students in order to enhance their academic performance. The 2003 request includes sufficient funding for continuation grants and mandated awards for organizations and activities specified in the statute. Other Department elementary and secondary education programs, particularly the State formula grant programs, also support improved achievement for Alaska Native students.
This program supports 10 regional Equity Assistance Centers that provide services to school districts on issues related to discrimination based on race, gender, and national origin. Typical activities include disseminating information on successful practices and legal requirements related to nondiscrimination, providing training to educators to develop their skills in specific areas, such as identification of bias in instructional materials, and technical assistance on selection of instructional materials.
This activity supports large-scale national evaluations that examine how Title I is contributing to improved student performance at the State, local educational agency (LEA), and school levels; short-term studies that document promising approaches or models; and other activities to help States and LEAs implement Title I requirements.
Mandated major evaluation activities include a longitudinal study to track the progress of schools in improving student performance, as well as an iterative National Assessment of Title I that focuses on how well schools, school districts, and States are implementing the Title I Grants to LEAs program. The 2003 request would help launch a comprehensive, multi-year evaluation plan for Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs currently under development.
The Impact Aid program provides financial support to school districts affected by Federal activities. The presence of certain children living on Federal property across the country may place a financial burden on school districts that educate them. The property on which the children live is exempt from local property taxes, denying districts access to the primary source of revenue used by most communities to finance education. Impact Aid helps to replace the lost local revenue that would otherwise be available to districts to pay for the education of these children.
The $982.5 million request for Basic Support Payments would provide grants for both regular Basic Support Payments and Basic Support Payments for Heavily Impacted LEAs.
The $50 million request for Payments for Children with Disabilities would help eligible districts meet the mandate under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide a free appropriate public education for federally connected children with disabilities.
The Department of Education owns and maintains 45 school facilities. The $8 million request for Facilities Maintenance would enable the Department of Education both to continue to transfer these schools to local school districts and to make emergency repairs to the school buildings owned.
School districts also generally pay for most of their school construction costs using their own resources and rely on property taxes to finance these costs. The proposed $45 million for Construction would provide both formula and competitive grants to school districts. Formula grants assist districts with large proportions of military dependent students and students residing on Indian lands. Competitive grants focus on helping LEAs make emergency renovations and modernization changes. The requested funding level is the same amount for construction as in 2002, minus $3 million in Congressional earmarks.
The $55 million request for Payments for Federal Property would provide payments to districts that generally have lost 10 percent or more of their taxable property to the Federal Government.
We the People provides a noncompetitive grant to the nonprofit Center for Civic Education in Calabasas, California. The program promotes civic competence and responsibility through teacher training and curriculum materials for upper elementary, middle, and high school students.
Cooperative Education Exchange supports education exchange activities in civics and economics between the United States and eligible countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States, any country that was formerly a republic of the Soviet Union, the Republic of Ireland, the province of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, and any democratic developing country. Award recipients provide educators from eligible countries with exemplary curriculum and teacher training programs in civics and economic education.
The Administration is not proposing to fund these programs in fiscal year 2003. This request is consistent with the Administration's intent to increase resources for higher priority programs by eliminating small categorical programs that have limited impact. While the programs have supported some worthwhile activities, they are not essential to the Department's mission and may be funded from other sources.
The Close Up Foundation of Washington, D.C. provides fellowships to middle- and secondary-school students from low-income families and their teachers to enable them to spend one week in Washington attending seminars on government and current events and meeting with leaders from the three branches of the Federal Government. No funding is requested for this activity because of the longstanding commitment by the Close Up Foundation to develop its own sources of fellowship assistance, as well as the demonstrated ability of peer organizations, such as the Presidential Classroom for Young Americans, to provide scholarships to some of their participants without Federal assistance
The request would not fund this activity because school dropout prevention and reentry programs for secondary-school students currently receive significantly higher levels of funding under such programs as Title I Grants to LEAs, Title I Migrant State Grants, Comprehensive School Reform, and Innovative Programs State Grants.
The National Writing Project (NWP) is a nonprofit educational organization that promotes teacher training programs in the effective teaching of writing. Through the NWP national network, teachers in every region of the United States gain access to a variety of effective practice and research findings on the teaching of writing. To provide these services, the NWP contracts with numerous institutions of higher education and nonprofit education providers to operate small ($100,000 or less) teacher training programs. Federal funds support 50 percent of the costs of these programs.
No funds are requested for the NWP in fiscal year 2003. States and districts can use other funds to support this type of training, such as the funds provided under the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program.
For 2003, the Administration requests no funding for two ESEA categorical programs that provide additional funds to rural school districts for elementary and secondary education activities. The Small, Rural School Achievement program provides formula funds to rural school districts serving small numbers of students, and the Rural and Low-Income School program provides formula grants to States, which have the option of suballocating funds to rural districts competitively or by formula.
Changes throughout the reauthorized ESEA eliminate the rationale for these programs by directly addressing the needs of rural districts, first by targeting more funds to such districts to help ensure that they receive larger formula allocations, and also by providing flexibility in the use of certain Federal funds to all districts, including rural districts. For example, a district eligible for the Small, Rural School Achievement program can consolidate its formula allocations from four different programs to carry out activities authorized by, among others, any of the consolidated programs or by Part A of Title I. Also, districts eligible for the Rural and Low-Income School program can use the new State and Local Transferability Act to transfer up to 50 percent of their allocations from four different formula programs to any of those programs or to Title I, Part A. Covered programs include, for example, Teacher Quality State Grants, Innovative Programs, or Safe and Drug-Free Schools, with combined funding of nearly $4 billion.
For further information contact the ED Budget Service
Table of Contents
B: Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
This page was last updated 03/11/05 (mjj)