U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Summary — February 4, 2008


Section II. A.  Elementary and Secondary Education



Six years after President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) into law, on January 8, 2002, Congress faces the challenge of renewing the Nation's commitment to the principle that all students—regardless of family income or racial or ethnic background, disability, or limited English proficiency—should reach grade-level standards in reading and mathematics by 2014. Under NCLB, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), States have for the first time implemented rigorous educational accountability systems based on their own academic standards and assessments that are used to measure student and school performance, report on results, identify weaknesses, and develop effective interventions that both address the needs of individual students and help turn around low-performing schools.

These changes have had a positive impact on overall academic achievement, while also helping to reduce longstanding achievement gaps between racial and ethnic groups. In June 2007, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) published a study, entitled Answering the Question that Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind?, that drew on State-reported assessment results to show that, under NCLB, the Nation's schools are on the right track:

The CEP findings confirm earlier-reported data on reading and math achievement from the National Assessment of Educational Progress that highlighted strong growth in reading achievement in the early grades from 1999-2004, all-time high math scores for 4th- and 8th-graders, and a decline in the achievement gaps in reading and math between African-American and Hispanic students and their white peers to all-time lows.

These reports of higher achievement are encouraging, but the State accountability systems created under NCLB also tell us that with only two-thirds of American students currently reaching the proficient level on State reading and mathematics assessments, there is much more work to be done. In particular, States identified more than 11,500 schools for improvement in the 2007-08 school year, including almost 4,000 schools that are either preparing or implementing fundamental restructuring plans. We also have increasingly reliable data documenting low graduation rates—resulting from high dropout rates—in far too many of our Nation's high schools.

And while hundreds of thousands of students are taking advantage of the public school choice and supplemental educational services options made available under NCLB, the percentage of eligible students participating in these options remains unacceptably low, primarily due to the absence of high-quality choices in too many school districts across the Nation.

In 2007, the Administration drew on the data and experience gathered during the first 5 years of NCLB implementation to develop a reauthorization proposal designed to build on the successes of NCLB and address new challenges. This proposal, which was shared with the Congress in late summer 2007, focused on (1) increasing flexibility for States and school districts to turn around low-performing schools, (2) improving the academic achievement of students in our high schools, and (3) expanding choice options for students in chronically low-performing schools.

The 2009 budget request for elementary and secondary education programs is based on the Administration's reauthorization proposal, and President Bush will continue to work with the Congress to complete a reauthorization of the ESEA that preserves and strengthens the core principles of NCLB. At the same time, the Administration believes it is appropriate—given the delays in the reauthorization process—to adopt administrative changes that can give States, school districts, and schools new tools and flexibility to more effectively implement NCLB prior to completion of reauthorization. An early example of such administrative actions was the December 2007 decision by Secretary Spellings to open up the "growth model pilot" to all States.

Highlights of the 2009 budget for elementary and secondary education programs include:


Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $12,838.1 $13,898.9 $14,304.9

Title I, Part A of the ESEA provides supplemental education funding, especially in high- poverty areas, for locally designed programs that offer extra academic support to help raise the achievement of students at risk of educational failure or, in the case of schoolwide programs, to help all students in high-poverty schools meet challenging State academic standards. This formula-based program serves more than 20 million students in nearly all school districts and more than 54,000 public schools—including two-thirds of the Nation's elementary schools.

Title I schools help students reach challenging State standards through one of two models: "targeted assistance" that supplements the regular education program of individual children deemed most in need of special assistance; or a "schoolwide" approach that allows schools to use Title I funds—in combination with other Federal, State, and local funds—to improve the overall instructional program for all children in a school. More than 30,000 participating schools use the schoolwide approach.

Both schoolwide and targeted assistance programs must employ effective methods and instructional strategies grounded in scientifically based research, including activities that supplement regular instruction, such as after-school, weekend, and summer programs. Schools also must provide ongoing professional development for staff working with disadvantaged students and implement programs and activities designed to increase parental involvement.

Participating schools must make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward annual, State- established proficiency goals aimed at ensuring that all students are proficient in reading and math by the 2013-14 school year. Schools that do not make AYP for at least 2 consecutive years must develop and implement improvement plans, and school districts must permit students attending such schools to transfer to a better-performing public school, with transportation provided by the district.

Schools that do not improve are subject to increasingly tough corrective actions—such as replacing school staff or significantly decreasing management authority at the school level—and can ultimately face restructuring, which involves a fundamental change in governance, such as conversion to a charter school or placement under private management. Students attending schools that have not made AYP for 3 or more years may obtain supplemental educational services (SES)—paid for by the district—from the public- or private-sector provider selected by their parents from a State-approved list.

Under section 1003(a) of the ESEA, States must reserve 4 percent of the Title I funds allocated to their LEAs for school improvement activities, and must subgrant 95 percent of these funds to LEAs with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. At the request level, States would reserve up to $570 million for school improvement activities.

NCLB Brought Revolutionary Change

Title I was first authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, but by 2001—after 37 years and $135 billion in funding—there was little, if any, evidence that the Federal government's largest elementary and secondary education program had a positive effect on educational achievement. The No Child Left Behind Act, which reauthorized Title I in 2002, brought revolutionary change and has produced significant results:

Most importantly, as described in the Overview of this section, both State assessments and the National Assessment of Educational Progress have documented consistent gains in student achievement and a narrowing of achievement gaps, thanks in large part to historic improvement in achievement by the minority and low-income students served by Title I.

Results like these and strong evidence that the program is well implemented helped Title I Grants to LEAs earn a Moderately Effective rating from the Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) in 2006. The PART found that the program is well structured to meet its goals, is effectively and efficiently implemented, has established meaningful long-term performance measures and annual targets, and is contributing to higher proficiency levels among the students served by the program.

NCLB Reauthorization

The 2009 request would build on this success by providing $14.3 billion to support critical program improvements included in the Administration's comprehensive reauthorization proposal for Title I Grants to LEAs. These improvements are focused in the areas of high school reform, strengthening adequate yearly progress, expanding choice options for students and parents, and supporting more fundamental restructuring efforts at chronically low-performing schools. The request for Title I, on top of the $1.1 billion increase provided in fiscal year 2008, provides a solid funding base for the Administration's reauthorization proposal. These Title I increases, coupled with other increases for special populations under such programs as English Language Acquisition State Grants and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part B Grants to States, will help keep the Nation's schools on the path toward 100-percent proficiency in 2014.

High School Reform

Steady progress in the early grades under NCLB has helped bring into sharp relief the extent to which high schools are often left behind by most education reforms. To help expand NCLB accountability principles at the high school level, the Administration's reauthorization proposal would require assessment in math and in reading or language arts in two additional high school grades, using assessments that are aligned with college and work-ready standards required for high school graduation, including aligned course-level outcomes. These new assessments, which must be in place by the end of the 2012-13 school year and which are funded in part by a $409 million 2009 request for State Assessments, would strengthen the impact of Title I accountability requirements at the high school level by giving parents, teachers, and principals more information on the progress of high school students toward State proficiency standards. The new assessments also would let students know if they are on track to graduate from high school prepared to succeed in either college or the workforce.

In addition to the new assessments, States would be required, by 2011-12, to use a graduation rate definition that meets the conditions established by the National Governors Association, and would be required to make significant annual improvement in the graduation rate a condition for making AYP.

The reauthorization proposal would provide additional resources at the high school level to help carry out these reforms by realigning Title I funding so that local allocations to high schools more closely reflect the enrollment of students from low-income families in those schools. This would be accomplished by requiring LEAs to ensure that the proportion of their Title I, Part A funds allocated to their high schools is at least 90 percent of the share of low-income students enrolled in those schools. Under current law, the share of Title I dollars reaching the high school level (grades 9-12) has ranged from just 8-10 percent over the past decade, even though during that period high schools enrolled about one-fifth of the low-income K-12 students who are the focus of Title I.

Strengthening AYP

In addition to requiring improvement in the graduation rate for high schools to make AYP, the reauthorization proposal would require States to include the results of science assessments in their AYP determinations beginning with the 2008-09 school year. States would set annual measurable objectives for science so that all students are proficient in science by 2020. States also would be permitted to incorporate student academic growth into their AYP definitions so long as they adhere to key No Child Left Behind accountability principles, such as the inclusion of all students, subgroup accountability, and ensuring that all students are proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014.

Expanding Choice for Students and Parents

The reauthorization proposal would expand choices for students and parents by requiring LEAs to offer both public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) to students enrolled in schools identified for a first year of improvement; doubling the per-child SES expenditure cap for students with disabilities, limited English proficient students, and students in rural districts; tightening requirements for use of the 20-percent reservation for choice-related transportation and SES; and permitting LEAs to use up to 1 percent of this reservation for parent outreach and assistance aimed at promoting greater participation in public school choice and SES options. The proposal also would increase the number of transfer options under public school choice by permitting schools that miss AYP for only one subgroup to serve as "receiving schools." In addition, LEAs would be required to offer private school choice to students from low-income families who are attending schools that are in restructuring status.

Promoting Fundamental Restructuring of Chronically Low-Performing Schools

Reports and evaluation data on restructuring under NCLB have highlighted the limited, tentative nature of most restructuring plans, which too often bear more resemblance to the corrective action phase of improvement than to the fundamental changes in structure and governance envisioned by the statute. The reauthorization proposal would encourage adoption of more fundamental, far-reaching restructuring strategies by eliminating the "any other major restructuring" option, reducing the impact of collective bargaining agreements on restructuring-related staffing changes, permitting the charter school restructuring option regardless of any State caps on the numbers of charter schools, and authorizing the operation of a school by an elected official, such as a city mayor, as an approved alternative governance arrangement under a restructuring plan.

In addition, the Administration would help ensure that States and school districts have the resources to carry out effective restructuring and other interventions by repealing the section 1003(e) "hold-harmless" provision and permitting States to withhold the full 4 percent for school improvement even if it reduces regular Title I, Part A allocations to LEAs below the prior-year level. This provision often prevents States from withholding the full 4 percent, and occasionally prohibits States from withholding any improvement funding. For example, according to the Center on Education Policy, for school year 2007-08, 3 States will not be able to reserve any school improvement funds and 29 States in total will be unable to reserve the full 4 percent.

Finally, the 2009 budget also includes a separate $9.2 million request for Title I Evaluation, primarily to support studies designed to produce rigorous scientific evidence on the effectiveness of education programs and practices, including practices critical to the effective use of Title I, Part A funds.


School Improvement Grants

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $125.0 $491.3 $491.3

Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes formula grants to States to provide assistance for local school improvement activities required by section 1116(b) of the ESEA for Title I schools that do not make adequate yearly progress for at least 2 consecutive years. Authorized activities include the development and implementation of school improvement plans, professional development for teachers and staff, corrective actions such as instituting a new curriculum, development and implementation of restructuring plans, and the provision of public school choice and supplemental educational services options.

The 2009 request would continue funding at $491.3 million, maintaining the same overall level of school improvement assistance while supporting a reauthorized program that would significantly increase State-level capacity to aid LEA and school improvement efforts.

Current law permits States to reserve just 5 percent of school improvement funding to pay for the statewide systems of "intensive and sustained support for and improvement for local educational agencies and schools." This limitation has meant that few States have been able to deliver on the NCLB promise of meaningful and substantial assistance to LEAs and schools identified for improvement.

This bar graph shows that in 2004-05, 1,180 schools were identified for restructuring; , 1,727 schools in 2005-06; 2,302 schools in 2006-07; and in 2007-08, 3,923 schools were identified for restructuring.

The National Assessment of Title I: Final Report identified resource limitations as "a moderate or serious challenge" to implementing the school improvement provisions of NCLB, citing obstacles in the following areas: adequacy of State-level staff size (45 States); adequacy of State-level staff expertise (30 States) adequacy of State funding (40 States); and adequacy of Federal funds allocated for State systems (39 States). These data highlight the importance of capacity-building efforts at the State level.

It is important to note that these data come from surveys conducted during the 2004-05 school year, when fewer schools were identified for improvement and far fewer were identified for the more demanding restructuring phase of improvement. Between the 2004-05 and 2007-08 school years, the total number of schools identified for improvement increased by more than 1,800, or 18.5 percent, while the number of schools identified for restructuring more than tripled, rising from 1,180 in 2004-05 to 3,923 in 2007-08.

The Administration's reauthorization proposal for School Improvement Grants would address the capacity issues affecting State support for school and LEA improvement by permitting States to reserve up to 50 percent of their allocations under section 1003(g) for State-level efforts to identify and implement effective interventions to turn around low- performing schools and school districts.


Pell Grants for Kids

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $300.0

The Pell Grants for Kids program would provide competitive grants to support local efforts to increase educational options for low-income K-12 students enrolled in the Nation's most troubled public schools, namely, Title I schools in restructuring status or high schools with significant dropout rates. Eligible students would receive scholarships to pay tuition, fees, and other education-related expenses at out-of-district public schools or nearby private schools. These scholarships would complement funds made available through the Title I program and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Students attending persistently low-performing schools deserve the opportunity to pursue other educational options, including attending a higher-performing out-of district public or nearby private school, while those schools are being restructured. Current law requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to provide students who attend such schools the option of attending a higher-performing public school; however, many LEAs, particularly urban LEAs, have few such options available and thus few meaningful choices for parents.

Under the Pell Grants for Kids program, the Department would make competitive awards to States, municipalities, LEAs, and public or private nonprofit organizations (including faith-based and community organizations) to develop K-12 scholarship programs for eligible low-income students attending schools that are in restructuring status under Title I or that have a graduation rate of less than 60 percent. In making awards, priority would be given to applicants that propose to serve students in areas with large numbers or percentages of low-performing schools and also to those applicants that propose to augment the Federal scholarships with additional funds in order to ensure that parents can pay the tuition and fees at the school of their choice.

Parents of eligible students who choose to send their child to an out-of-district public school or nearby private school would receive a scholarship equal to the sum of tuition, fees, and other costs, including necessary transportation costs, for the new school, or the average per-pupil expenditure of public schools in the State where the recipient resides, whichever is less. Scholarship recipients would be required to take their States' assessments or a nationally normed test in each grade and subject required under Title I.


21st Century Learning Opportunities (21st Century Community Learning Centers)

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $981.2 $1,081.2 $800.0

As currently authorized, this program helps communities establish or expand centers that provide extended learning opportunities for students and related services to their families. From their formula grants, States make competitive awards to school districts, community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, and other public or private entities for projects that primarily serve students attending high-poverty schools. 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 achievement standards in core academic subjects. However, a national evaluation of the program and the program's performance data to date cast doubt on whether the program is achieving results; in particular, performance data indicate that there has been little improvement in key academic outcomes since 2004.

The request is based on a proposal to transform the program into an after-school and summer-school scholarship program, renamed the 21st Century Learning Opportunities program, that would give parents greater choices in the selection of extended-learning opportunities for their children and focus the program more precisely on using the time outside of school to improve educational achievement consistent with State standards.

Under the reauthorized program, the Department would continue to allocate funding by formula to States, which would award competitive grants to public or private nonprofit organizations to administer scholarships for students from low-income families who attend schools that have been identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Title I, or who attend schools with a graduation rate of less than 60 percent. In making awards, the Department would require States and their subgrantees to ensure the high quality of the academic component of the after-school programs at which students use their scholarships, and to ensure that those components are aligned with State educational standards. States would also have to explain in their applications how they would ensure that families can choose from a variety of high-quality providers, including faith-based and community organizations, and how they would align activities funded under this program with supplemental educational services provided under Title I. Although local projects could provide additional activities, such as recreation programs and arts, the primary use of Federal funds would be supporting efforts clearly geared toward generating higher academic achievement of disadvantaged students.

A 2003 PART analysis gave the currently authorized program an Adequate rating and high scores for purpose, planning, and management, while identifying weaknesses related to accountability. The Department has taken steps to improve the program's data collection system and to use data and program evaluations to improve program management.


State Assessments
(B.A. in millions)

  2007 2008 2009
State Grants $400.0 $400.0 $400.0
Enhanced Assessment Instrument 7.6 8.7 8.7



This program provides formula grants to States to pay the cost of developing the additional standards and assessments required by NCLB and, if a State has put in place such standards and assessments, to pay for the administration of those assessments or other related activities. Funds also may be used to develop standards and assessments in subjects other than those required by NCLB 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 State accountability systems required under NCLB.

Under Title I, States select or develop their own assessments aligned with State academic achievement standards. States were required to put in place annual assessments in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and in one high school grade by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, and to implement annual science assessments in three grade spans (3-5, 6-9, 10-12) by the 2007-2008 school year.

The 2009 request would provide $400 million to support, as part of the Administration's ESEA reauthorization proposal, the development of 2 years of high school assessments in reading and mathematics that would be aligned with college and work-ready standards, including aligned course-level outcomes. These new assessments would support the Administration's strategy for using the ESEA reauthorization to drive NCLB reforms to the high school level. The remaining $8.7 million would fund Enhanced Assessment Instruments grants to assist States in improving the quality of assessment for limited English proficient students and students with disabilities. Additional funding for improvement of student assessment is proposed under the Fund for the Improvement of Education.

A 2004 PART analysis of State Assessment Grants produced a rating of Adequate, finding that the program has a clear purpose, is operated well, and meets an important need.


Reading First
(B.A. in millions)

  2007 2008 2009
Reading First State Grants $1,029.2 $393.0 $1,000.0
Early Reading First 117.7 112.5 112.5



The Reading First initiative is a critical test of the emphasis of No Child Left Behind on the use of research-based instruction to improve student achievement. The Reading First State Grants program provides formula grants to help school districts and schools provide professional development in reading instruction for teachers and administrators, adopt and use diagnostic reading assessments for students in kindergarten through third grade to determine where they need help, implement reading curricula that are grounded in scientifically based research, and provide reading interventions for young grade-school children. The program responds to research showing that students who cannot read well by fourth grade have a greater likelihood of dropping out and facing a lifetime of diminished success.

This line graph shows that the percentage of third grade students in Reading First schools who score at or above provicient on State reading assessments increased from 42 percent in 2004 to 45 percent in 2005 and to 49 percent in 2006.

Performance data for Reading First State Grants show clear early reading gains (across all grades and targeted populations) after only a few years of implementation. In addition, nationwide data show a continuing need for the program, as too many young children do not master reading—the most basic and essential skill required for more advanced learning—during their early elementary school years. For example, 56 percent of all fourth graders in high-poverty schools scored below the "basic" reading level on the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Reading First activities help increase reading gains, reduce the number of children who fall behind in reading, provide additional help to children who need it, and lower the number of children referred to special education due to low reading scores. The Reading First State Grants program received a PART rating of Effective in 2006, reflecting in large part the clear early reading gains documented by performance data.

Congress sharply reduced Reading First State Grants funding in fiscal year 2008 in response to management problems identified in Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports. The Department has implemented all of the OIG recommendations for the program, including decisive steps to ensure that problems related to perceived conflicts of interest do not recur. In addition, the Administration's reauthorization proposal for Reading First includes amendments to strengthen the screening process for conflicts of interest, define the types of programs that can be implemented using Reading First funds, increase accountability in large LEAs, improve targeting of program funds to the schools most in need of support, and expand flexibility in the Targeted Assistance Grants program.

The Administration believes that Reading First's problems are now in the past, that the program is well managed and generating consistently positive achievement outcomes, and that Congress should restore funding to the level required for States to continue fully implementing this necessary program. The 2009 request would provide $1 billion for Reading First State Grants in support of this goal.

Early Reading First complements Reading First State Grants by providing competitive grants to school districts and non-profit organizations to support activities in preschool programs designed to enhance the verbal skills, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and pre-reading skills of children from birth through age 5. Funds are focused on communities with high numbers of low-income families. A 2006 PART review rated Early Reading First Moderately Effective. The 2009 request would support up to 36 new Early Reading First projects.

The Administration's reauthorization proposal for Early Reading First would strengthen partnerships between preschool providers and institutions of higher education that provide professional development to early childhood educators by requiring all Early Reading First projects to have a strong educator professional development component. This change would promote more efficient administration of ESEA early childhood discretionary grants and ensure that their activities include an appropriate focus on scientifically based reading readiness and high-quality professional development.


Striving Readers

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $31.9 $35.4 $100.0

The request includes a $65 million expansion for this program, first funded in 2005, which supports research-based interventions to help improve the skills of secondary school students who are reading below grade level. Such students often are at risk of dropping out of school because of their poor reading skills, which can affect their performance in all subject areas.

The request would fund competitive awards for: (1) the development, implementation, and testing of research-based reading interventions designed to improve the reading skills of students reading significantly below grade level; (2) rigorous evaluations, including evaluations that use experimental research designs, of reading interventions being implemented in the Nation's secondary schools to determine their efficacy; and (3) activities to improve the quality of literacy instruction across the curriculum in schools receiving program funds. The Administration's ESEA reauthorization proposal would create a separate authority for the Striving Readers program, which is currently funded under the Title I Demonstration authority.


Math Now

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $95.0

The Math Now program authorizes competitive grants to improve instruction in mathematics for students in kindergarten through 9th grade. Grantees will implement research-based mathematics programs to enable all students to reach or exceed grade- level achievement standards and prepare them to enroll in and pass algebra courses.

School districts that receive funds would use them to: (1) implement mathematics programs that are research-based and reflect a demonstrated record of effectiveness; (2) provide professional development to teachers and, if appropriate, administrators and other school staff, on the implementation of mathematics initiatives designed to improve student achievement, improve mathematical content knowledge, increase the use of effective instructional practices, and monitor student progress; and (3) conduct continuous progress monitoring to measure student progress and identify areas in which students need help learning mathematics. School districts could also use their funds to adopt and use mathematics instructional materials and assessments, implement classroom-based assessments, provide remedial coursework and interventions for students, provide small groups of students with individualized instruction, conduct activities to improve teachers' content knowledge, and collect and report performance data.

Advanced Placement
(B.A. in millions)

  2007 2008 2009
Advanced Placement and
   International Baccalaureate
   Programs (COMPETES Act VI-A-II)
Advanced Placement (ESEA I-G) $37.0 $43.5



Under the recently enacted America COMPETES Act, this program presents a new vision for advanced placement, as embodied in the President's American Competitiveness Initiative. As with the program authorized under Title I, Part G of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the purpose of the new AP/IB program is to support State and local efforts to increase access to advanced placement classes and tests for low-income students in order to better prepare them for success after high school. However, the new authority targets Federal support more specifically on the preparation of teachers to teach classes in the critical subjects of mathematics, science, and the critical foreign languages, and on encouraging more students from high-need schools to take and pass AP and IB courses and tests in those subjects. In addition, by requiring a 2-to-1 non-Federal-to-Federal match, it is designed to leverage Federal support in a manner that, over a period of years, will result in a dramatic increase in the creation of AP and IB programs in critical subjects in high-need schools. Further, by authorizing salary incentives to teachers who become qualified to teach AP and IB courses in the critical subjects or whose students pass the AP and IB tests in those subjects, it is designed to create additional incentives for the expansion of advanced placement programs in the schools that most need them.

The request is an increase of $26.5 million over the 2008 appropriation for the Advanced Placement program authorized under ESEA. The request also includes appropriations language providing that fiscal year 2009 funds will first be used to pay continuation costs under the ESEA Advanced Placement Incentive (API) Grant program and to meet State needs for AP test fees under the ESEA program, with all remaining funds used under the new authority. The inclusion of this language would ensure that State needs for tests fees subsidies continue to be met and that grants made in prior years are not cut off. Of the requested amount, roughly $12 million would be required to fund State applications for the Test Fees program and approximately $11 million would fund API continuation grants under the ESEA program, leaving an estimated $47 million for new grants under the COMPETES Act authority. Funds available for new awards will support projects expanding AP offerings and participation in mathematics, science, and critical foreign languages.


Adjunct Teacher Corps

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $10.0

This initiative would create an Adjunct Teacher Corps that would draw on the skills of well-qualified individuals outside of the public education system to meet specialized teaching needs in secondary schools. Instead of the usual focus on certification or licensure of such individuals, the initiative would concentrate on helping schools find experienced professionals who can bring real-world experience to their explanation of abstract mathematical concepts or scientific principles in hard-to-fill teaching positions.

Funds would be used to make competitive grants to partnerships of school districts and States or appropriate public or private entities to create opportunities for professionals with subject-matter expertise to teach secondary-school courses in the core academic subjects, particularly in mathematics and science. Adjunct teachers might teach one or more courses on the school site on a part-time basis, teach full-time in secondary schools while on leave from their jobs, or teach courses that would be available online or through other distance learning arrangements.


Title I State Agency Programs
(B.A. in millions)

  2007 2008 2009
Migrant Education $386.5 $379.8 $399.8
Neglected and Delinquent 49.8 48.9 51.9



Migrant Education State Grants provide formula-based assistance in meeting the special educational needs of nearly 636,000 children of migrant agricultural workers by helping States identify and pay the higher costs often associated with serving such children. The Department also uses a portion of funding to improve inter- and intra- State coordination of migrant education activities. The request includes a $20 million increase for the program, reflecting the Administration's policy of providing increases to selected programs serving disadvantaged populations and programs that have made improvements in performance, management, or efficiency, as demonstrated through the PART process.

The Administration's reauthorization proposal for the program would improve and simplify the State allocation formula and ensure that allocations respond to shifts in State counts of migrant students; improve targeting of services to migrant students by strengthening the program purpose language and sharpening the provisions that determine which students receive priority for program services; increase the set-aside for migrant coordination activities (from $10 million to $12.5 million); and add a new authority to set aside up to $5 million of program funds over the life of the authorization for an evaluation of the program.

The Migrant Education State Grants program received a PART rating of Adequate in 2006. While the review found that the program is on track to meet its long-term performance objectives, it also noted inaccuracies in State identification and counting of eligible students. In response, the Department has developed a plan to review the reliability and validity of States' reported error rates and is providing States with technical assistance and support in ensuring accurate and timely student identification. In addition, in 2007 the Department began operating the new Migrant Student Record Exchange System, which is designed to enable States to exchange migrant student data records efficiently and expeditiously and provide an accurate, unduplicated count of the number of migrant students on a national and statewide basis.

The Title I Neglected and Delinquent program makes State formula grants to support educational services for an estimated 134,000 children and youth in State-operated institutions. The request includes a $3 million funding increase, reflecting the Administration's policy of providing increases to selected programs serving disadvantaged populations and programs that have made improvements in program management or performance.

The Title I Neglected and Delinquent program received a PART rating of Results Not Demonstrated in 2005, primarily due to the absence of performance targets and data. In response, the Department improved data collection procedures and established performance targets. The program underwent a PART evaluation again in 2007 and, based on improvements in data quality and program accountability, received a rating of Adequate.

In response to the 2007 PART improvement plan recommendations, the Department is continuing to improve technical assistance to States to help ensure they are providing effective transition services to help students continue further schooling or employment, and to develop better means of tracking achievement data once students leave institutions, including data on high school graduation rates.


English Language Acquisition
(B.A. in millions)

  2007 2008 2009
Language Acquisition State Grants $620.5 $649.9 $677.6
National Activities 43.5 45.5 47.4
Native American Grants 5.0 5.0 5.0



Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes formula grants to States based on each State's share of the Nation's limited English proficient (LEP) and recent immigrant student population. Grants help States design and implement statewide activities meeting the educational needs of their LEP students. States must develop annual measurable achievement objectives for LEP students that measure their success in achieving English language proficiency and meeting challenging State academic content and achievement standards.

The request includes a $29.6 million increase for the program, reflecting the Administration's policy of providing increases to selected programs serving disadvantaged populations and programs that have made improvements in program management or performance. In addition, the requested increase would help the program meet the needs of the rapidly growing LEP student population.

The request also would provide continued support for Title III National Activities, including the National Professional Development Project, the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instructional Programs, and evaluation.

The Administration's reauthorization proposal for Title III would make minor changes to the program, including strengthening the standards applicable to teachers and paraprofessionals who educate LEP students.

The program received a PART rating of Results Not Demonstrated in 2006, largely due to the lack of data to document the program's success in improving student outcomes.


Improving Teacher Quality State Grants

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $2,887.4 $2,935.2 $2,835.2

NCLB required States and school districts to ensure that all teachers were highly qualified—as defined by individual States consistent with ESEA requirements—by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. While the States have not yet met this requirement, more than 90 percent of teachers nationwide are now highly qualified, and nearly all States have put in place comprehensive plans for meeting the 100 percent target. The Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program is a major source of flexible Federal funding to help States and school districts strengthen the skills of the teaching force and meet the highly qualified teacher requirement. Program funds support high-quality professional development that research indicates can improve teaching skills that raise student achievement.

State-level activities may include changes to teacher certification or licensure requirements, alternative certification, tenure reform, merit-based teacher performance systems, and differential and bonus pay for teachers in high-need subject areas. School districts may use funds for professional development, recruitment and retraining of teachers and principals, merit pay, mentoring, and other activities.

The proposed $100 million reduction reflects a decision to increase investment in the Teacher Incentive Fund in order to expand support for State and local initiatives that introduce performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems and provide incentives for the most effective teachers to serve in the most challenging schools. While most teachers are now considered to be highly qualified, these teachers are not distributed equitably across all school districts. It is appropriate to shift a portion of funds to the Teacher Incentive Fund to promote these important compensation reforms and assist districts in their efforts to ensure that all students are taught by effective teachers.

The Department also would continue developing the knowledge base on teacher effectiveness by reserving up to $14.2 million (one-half of 1 percent) of the appropriation for evaluation and related activities.

The initial PART review of this program, in 2003, rated it Results Not Demonstrated. A second review in 2005 gave the program a Moderately Effective rating, based on progress in reaching performance targets and evidence that the Department has initiated rigorous program evaluations and improved its technical assistance to States and districts.


Teacher Incentive Fund

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $0.2 $97.3 $200.0

This program provides grants to encourage school districts and States to develop and implement innovative performance-based compensation systems that reward teachers and principals for raising student achievement and for taking positions in high-need schools. States and LEAs, either alone or in partnership with non-profit organizations, may apply for competitive grants to develop and implement performance-based compensation systems for public school teachers and principals. These compensation systems must be based primarily on measures related to student achievement.

The $102.7 million increase would support a significant expansion of State and school district efforts to develop and implement innovative compensation systems that provide financial incentives for teachers and principals who raise student achievement and close the achievement gap in some of our Nation's highest-need schools and that attract highly qualified teachers to those schools.


Mathematics and Science Partnerships

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $182.2 $179.0 $179.0

This program makes formula grants to help States and localities improve academic achievement in mathematics and science. It promotes development of teaching skills by elementary and secondary school teachers, including skill in integrating teaching methods based on scientifically based research and technology into the curriculum. Partnerships focus on developing rigorous mathematics and science curricula, distance learning programs, and incentives to recruit college graduates with degrees in math and science into the teaching profession.

A 2006 PART review of this program produced a Results Not Demonstrated rating due to limited performance and evaluation data. In response, the Department revised the program's performance measures and expects baseline performance data to become available in 2008.



  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $14.6 $14.4 $14.4

The Troops-to-Teachers program helps to improve public school education by recruiting, preparing, and supporting members of the military service as teachers in high-poverty public schools. The Department of Defense administers the program through a memorandum of agreement with ED. A 2006 report by the Government Accountability Office found that the program contributes significantly to the diversity of the population of new teachers, with high percentages of men and minorities as participants. Teachers recruited through the Troops-to-Teachers program also teach math, science, and special education in significantly higher proportions than traditional public school teachers.

A 2003 PART analysis of the Troops-to-Teachers program produced an Adequate rating, concluding that, while the program is accomplishing its objectives, it would benefit from short- and long-term performance measures and more transparent reporting of results. The Department has responded to these findings by establishing performance measures and improving reporting.


Transition to Teaching

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $44.5 $43.7 $43.7

This program supports alternative routes to teacher certification and other innovative approaches for recruiting, training, and placing mid-career professionals, recent college graduates, and educational paraprofessionals in high-need schools and supporting them during their first years in the classroom. The request would support some 88 grants to help States and communities recruit and retain capable and qualified teachers in our Nation's public schools.

The program received a PART rating of Adequate in 2005, based on high scores for purpose, measurable goals, and progress in making performance data available to the public. In response to PART findings, the Department has improved the reliability and comparability of performance data and implemented program efficiency measures.

The Administration's reauthorization proposal for Transition to Teaching would permit the participation, in some circumstances, of veteran teachers seeking additional credentials, and would better align the authorized activities with participating LEAs' plans for recruiting and retaining teachers in high-need schools.


Teaching American History

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $119.8 $117.9 $50.0

This program makes competitive grants to school districts for professional development to strengthen the teaching of traditional American history as a separate subject in elementary and secondary schools. The Administration recognizes the importance of American history in preparing future generations of students to become responsible citizens and to participate fully in our democracy. However, the number of quality applications for assistance under this program in recent years does not justify the current level of funding. The reduced request would fund approximately 50 to 55 new awards, roughly the number of high-quality applications likely to be submitted.

A PART analysis completed in 2004 produced a Results Not Demonstrated rating for this program, primarily due to the absence of long-term and annual performance targets and data. In response, the Department is collecting new data, setting performance targets, and developing a strategy for making the data available to the public.


Literacy Through School Libraries

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $19.5 $19.1 $19.1

This program helps school districts improve literacy skills by providing students with increased access to up-to-date school library materials and professionally certified school library media specialists. The 2009 request would fund roughly 75 competitive grants that would support the efforts of libraries to help children learn to read well by making information available to all students, training students and teachers about how to obtain and make use of information, and increasing access to technology and information for students in low-income schools.


Charter Schools Grants

  2007   2008   2009
B.A. in millions $214.8   $211.0 1 $236.0  

   1Planned activities for fiscal year 2008 include approximately $190 million for the Charter Schools grants program (including national activities), $12.7 million for Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants, and $8.3 million for Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities.

This program increases public school choice options by supporting the planning, development, and initial implementation of public charter schools. States also may use a portion of their funds for dissemination of information on successful charter school practices. In addition, a portion of the appropriation is used for the State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants program, which provides competitive matching funds to States that offer per-pupil financial assistance to charter schools to obtain facilities. Forty States and the District of Columbia have charter school laws that offer regulatory flexibility in exchange for greater accountability for improving student performance. Over the last decade, with support from this program, the number of charter schools nationwide has grown from only a handful to more than 4,000.

The $25 million increase requested for 2009 would increase support for the planning and start up of charter schools, a key element of the Administration's efforts to expand quality school choice for students and parents.

This request is supported by a 2005 PART analysis that gave the program an Adequate rating and high scores for purpose, program management, and demonstrated results, while identifying weaknesses related to data collection and public availability of results. The Department is taking steps to eliminate those weaknesses.


Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities

  2007   2008   2009
B.A. in millions $36.6   1 $36.6  

   1The Department will use $8.3 million for this program from the appropriation for the Charter Schools Grants program, as permitted by the fiscal year 2008 appropriation.

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 limited access to suitable academic facilities. The Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program provides competitive grants to public and nonprofit entities that help charter schools secure the financing needed to purchase, construct, renovate, or lease academic facilities. For example, a grantee might provide guarantees and insurance on bonds and leases. The request would leverage an estimated $333 million and support more than 200 charter schools over the course of the grants.


Magnet Schools Assistance

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $106.7 $104.8 $104.8

The request would support continuation awards to approximately 40 local educational agencies to operate magnet schools that are part of a court-ordered or court-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. The Department would use about $1.5 million for evaluation and dissemination activities.

A 2004 PART analysis of this program produced an Adequate rating and high scores for purpose, management, and evaluation strategy, while also noting weaknesses in the collection and public dissemination of performance data. The Department is working to improve data collection and to develop a plan for making performance data accessible to the public.


Voluntary Public School Choice

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $26.3 $25.8 $25.8

This program 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. Competitive grants 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 Department made 14 new awards in 2007, with a priority for projects that provide interdistrict choice and aim to improve the academic achievement of secondary school students. The 2009 request would provide the third year of funding for these awards.


Fund for the Improvement of Education
(B.A. in millions)

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $16.1 $121.9 $52.3

The Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE) supports nationally significant programs, administered through a combination of discretionary grants and contracts, to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education at the State and local levels and help all students meet challenging State academic achievement standards. The budget would provide funding for two components of the National Security Language Initiative: $5 million for the Language Teacher Corps, which would provide training to college graduates with critical language skills who are interested in becoming foreign language teachers, and $3 million for a Teacher-to-Teacher Initiative that would fund intensive summer training sessions for foreign language teachers, especially teachers of critical need languages.

The request also would provide $15 million in competitive grants for activities designed to promote early literacy for infants and preschool children; $10 million for an initiative to help ensure that high-need public schools have high-quality teachers and $5 million for a similar program for nonpublic schools; $5 million for a comprehensive assessment systems demonstration project; and $5 million for technical assistance to States to help them improve student assessments.

Other proposed activities include $2 million to continue a Data Quality Initiative launched in fiscal year 2006 that is intended to improve the quality of Department evaluations and data collections for its elementary and secondary education programs and $1.3 million for State Scholars, a program that supports partnerships that encourage high school students to complete a rigorous academic curriculum.


Foreign Language Assistance

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $23.8 $25.7 $25.7

This program provides 3-year competitive grants to State educational agencies to support systemic approaches to improving foreign language learning in States, and to local educational agencies to establish, improve, and expand foreign language instruction. As part of the President's National Security Language Initiative, the Department will continue to give priority to State and local proposals to provide instruction in critical foreign languages, such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Russian, as well as languages in the Indic, Iranian, and Turkic families.

In fiscal year 2008, Congress provided approximately $2.4 million for 5-year grants to LEAs, in partnership with institutions of higher education, to establish or expand articulated programs of study in the critical foreign languages. These new grants will enable students, as they advance through elementary and secondary school and then college, to attain a superior level of proficiency in languages critical to U.S. national security and economic prosperity. The budget request would expand this initiative in 2009, allowing some 25 new grants to be made, while also supporting an estimated 35 new grants to LEAs under the regular program.


Comprehensive Centers

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $56.3 $57.1 $57.1

The Comprehensive Centers, selected competitively in 2005, are structured to provide intensive technical assistance to increase the capacity of State educational agencies (SEAs) to help districts and schools meet the key goals of No Child Left Behind, including 100-percent proficiency in reading and math by the 2013-14 school year, highly qualified teachers in every classroom, the use of research-based instructional methods and curricula, and increased choices for students and parents.

The system includes 16 regional centers that work with SEAs within specified geographic regions to help them implement NCLB school improvement measures and objectives. In addition, 5 content centers provide in-depth, specialized support in key areas, with separate centers focusing on (1) assessment and accountability; (2) instruction; (3) teacher quality; (4) innovation and improvement; and (5) high schools. Each content center pulls together resources and expertise to provide analyses, information, and materials in its focus area for use by the network of regional centers, SEAs, and other clients.

The antecedent comprehensive centers program received a PART rating in 2004 of Results Not Demonstrated. The Department responded to the initial recommendations by embedding newly developed common measures for technical assistance programs into the new program. Those measures will determine the quality, relevance, and usefulness of the centers' products and services. The Department will establish long- term performance goals, targets, and time frames for the measures in 2008, once baseline data become available.


Rural Education

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $168.9 $171.9 $171.9

The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) authorizes two programs to assist rural school districts in carrying out activities to help improve the quality of teaching and learning in their schools. The Small, Rural School Achievement program provides formula funds to rural school districts that serve small numbers of students, and the Rural and Low-Income School program provides funds to rural school districts that serve concentrations of poor students, regardless of the district's size. Funds appropriated for REAP are divided equally between these two programs. The request would maintain support for rural, often geographically isolated, districts that face significant challenges in implementing NCLB accountability requirements. The Administration's reauthorization proposal would create a more equitable distribution of funds and improve efficiency in administration of the Small, Rural School Achievement program, while providing additional flexibility to LEAs receiving funds under the Rural and Low-Income School program.

The 2006 PART analysis of the Rural Education program produced a Results Not Demonstrated rating, primarily due to the absence of student achievement data for the program's annual and long-term performance measures at the time of the initial review. In response, the Department is currently collecting performance data and developing a strategy for making the data available to the public.


Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (B.A. in millions)

  2007   2008   2009
State grants $346.5   $294.8   $100.0  
National activities 149.7   137.7   182.0  

   1Excludes amounts for the Alcohol Abuse Reduction and Mentoring Program funded under Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Programs in 2007 and 2008, which are proposed for termination in 2009.

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) State Grants program supports research-based approaches to drug and violence prevention. PART reviews conducted in 2002 and 2006 found that the structure of the program is flawed, spreading funding too thinly to support quality interventions and failing to target schools and communities in greatest need of assistance. Accordingly, the Administration's reauthorization proposal would significantly change the structure of the program by requiring State educational agencies to support local implementation of effective models for the creation of safe, healthy, drug-free, and secure schools. Such activities could include, for example, provision of training, technical and financial assistance, and local capacity building to school districts to support their efforts to deter student drug use; to prepare for, prevent, mitigate, respond to, and recover from crises arising from violent or traumatic events or natural disasters; and to restore the learning environment in the event of a crisis or emergency. The reduced request for SDFSC State Grants in 2009 would support this reauthorization proposal.

The Administration also is proposing to consolidate SDFSC National Programs into a single, flexible discretionary program focused on four priority areas: (1) emergency management planning; (2) preventing violence and drug use, including student drug testing; (3) school culture and climate, including character education; and (4) other needs related to improving students' learning environment to enable those students to learn to high academic standards. Grantees would be required, to the extent possible, to implement interventions that reflect scientifically based research. The 2009 request includes $10 million for drug prevention or school safety programs informed by scientifically based research or that will use such research to demonstrate their effectiveness, and $77.8 million for grants to school districts for comprehensive, community-wide "Safe Schools/Healthy Students" drug and violence prevention projects. Other activities include $30 million for school emergency preparedness initiatives and $5 million for initiatives in emergency preparedness for institutions of higher education (IHEs), $11.8 million for school-based drug testing for students, $23.8 million for character education programs in elementary and secondary schools, and $5 million to provide emergency response services to LEAs and IHEs under Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence).


Ready-to-Learn Television

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $24.3 $23.8 $23.8

This program supports the development and distribution of educational video and related materials for preschool children, elementary school children, and their parents that are intended to improve school readiness and academic achievement.

A 2004 PART analysis of this program produced a Results Not Demonstrated rating, primarily due to a lack of consistent or reliable data on program results, and a recommendation that the Department take additional steps to better understand the impact of the program. In response, the Department has made three key changes. First, the Department is requiring that all new children's television programming content be informed by scientifically based research in reading and early literacy. Second, grantees must conduct rigorous evaluations using experimental or quasi-experimental designs. And third, instead of a single, large award, the Department has made three smaller competitive awards (two programming and one outreach award) to different grantees. The request would continue support for these three awards.


High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program
(B.A. in millions)

  2007 2008 2009
High School Equivalency Program $18.6 $18.2 $18.2
College Assistance Migrant Program 15.4 15.1 15.1



The High School Equivalency Program (HEP) funds competitively selected projects to help low-income migrant and seasonal farm workers gain high school diplomas or equivalency certificates. The College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) makes competitive grants to provide stipends and special services, such as tutoring and counseling, to migrant students who are in their first year of college. The 2009 request would support approximately 84 HEP and CAMP projects.

The Department completed a PART analysis of these programs in 2004. Both programs were rated Results Not Demonstrated due to weaknesses related to data collection and accountability. In response, the Department developed a new annual performance report for the HEP program that will improve collection of comparable performance data across grantees; the Department expects to develop a similar annual performance report for the CAMP program in 2008.


Indian Education
(B.A. in millions)

  2007 2008 2009
Grants to Local Educational
$95.3 $96.6 $96.6
Special Programs for Indian Children 19.4 19.1 19.1
National Activities 4.0 3.9 3.9



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 in order to ensure that Indian students benefit from those reforms and achieve to the same challenging academic standards as other students.

Grants to Local Educational Agencies provide formula grants to public and Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Education-supported schools for activities to improve the educational achievement of Indian students. Special Programs for Indian Children includes $9.2 million in competitive grants for the American Indian Teacher Corps and the American Indian Administrator Corps, to support training for Indian teachers and administrators to take positions in schools that serve concentrations of Indian children, and $9.7 million for competitive demonstration grants to improve educational opportunities for Indian children in such areas as early childhood education and college preparation.

The request also provides $3.9 million for National Activities, which funds research, evaluation, and data collection designed to fill gaps in our understanding of the educational status and needs of Indians and to identify educational practices that are effective with Indian students. The program also provides technical assistance to school districts and other entities receiving Indian Education formula and discretionary grants.

The 2007 PART analysis of the Indian Education Grants to Local Educational Agencies program produced an Adequate rating. In response to an initial PART review in 2006, which resulted in a Results Not Demonstrated rating, the Department established several new long-term and annual performance measures to complement the existing national- level data on Indian students' performance on the NAEP. Further, the Department has taken steps to improve management of the program by developing a web-based Performance Measures Tracking System, which maintains grant application and performance data within the EDFacts system.


Supplemental Education Grants (Compact of Free Association Amendments Act)

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $18.0 $17.7 $17.7

The request would maintain support for Supplemental Education Grants to the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), as authorized by the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-188). Under this program, the Department transfers funds and provides recommendations on funding to the Department of the Interior, which makes grants to the FSM and RMI for educational services that augment the general operations of the educational systems of the two entities.

P.L. 108-188 eliminated RMI and FSM participation in most domestic formula grant programs funded by the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor, and created this program to supplement separate education support programs under the Compact. The request would allow the RMI and FSM to support programs that focus on improving the educational achievement of students in the two Freely Associated States.


Education for Homeless Children and Youths

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $61.9 $64.1 $64.1

This program provides formula grants to States, which subgrant most funds to LEAs for tutoring, transportation, and other services that help homeless children to enroll in, attend, and succeed in school. In addition to academic instruction, the program helps ensure access for these children to preschool programs, special education, and gifted and talented programs.

While nearly all States have eased residency requirements and improved transportation and immunization policies to ensure greater access for homeless students over the past decade, those students continue to be at significant risk of educational failure. The request would maintain support for State and local activities designed to reduce that risk.

This program received an Adequate rating following a 2006 PART review, which found that the program is generally well managed and has a good performance data collection system in place. However, the review also identified weaknesses in the areas of evaluation and efficiency data. The Department has now established baseline data and set targets for the program's efficiency measure.


Impact Aid
(B.A. in millions)

  2007 2008 2009
Payments for Federally Connected Children:      
  Basic Support Payments $1,091.9 $1,105.5 $1,105.5
  Payments for Children with
49.5 48.6 48.6
Facilities Maintenance 5.0 4.9 4.9
Construction 17.8 17.5 17.5
Payments for Federal Property 64.4 64.2 64.2



The Impact Aid program provides financial support to school districts affected by Federal activities. The property on which certain 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 $1.1 billion request for Basic Support Payments would provide formula grants for both regular Basic Support Payments and Basic Support Payments for Heavily Impacted LEAs.

The $48.6 million request for Payments for Children with Disabilities would provide formula grants to help eligible districts meet their obligations 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 24 school facilities that serve large numbers of military dependents. The $4.8 million request for Facilities Maintenance would fund essential repair and maintenance of these facilities and allow the Department to continue to transfer schools to local school districts.

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. Districts affected by Federal operations have limited access to those sources of funding. Continuing the policy established in the fiscal year 2008 appropriation, the entire $17.5 million proposed for Construction would be used for competitive grants, rather than the formula grants that are also currently authorized under the program. Unlike the formula grants, the competitive grants are targeted to the LEAs with the greatest need and provide sufficient assistance to enable those LEAs to make major repairs and renovations.

The $64.2 million request for Payments for Federal Property would provide formula-based payments to districts that generally have lost 10 percent or more of their taxable property to the Federal Government.

For reauthorization, Administration proposals would improve the Impact Aid funding formulas, achieving greater equity in allocations, particularly in Basic Support Payments.

PART assessments have produced mixed results for Impact Aid programs. A 2005 PART analysis of Impact Aid Basic Support Payments and Payments for Children with Disabilities resulted in a Results Not Demonstrated rating, based on the lack of data on how well program funds are targeted, while also acknowledging the Department's efficiencies in managing payments. In response, the Department contracted for a study that is examining the effectiveness of the program formulas in delivering assistance to Federally affected school districts.

A 2005 PART analysis of Impact Aid Construction produced an Adequate rating and high scores for purpose, program management, and results that show improvement in grantees' ability to improve the condition of their school buildings. A 2004 PART analysis of Payments for Federal Property produced a Results Not Demonstrated rating based on the lack of annual and long-term performance measures for the program. In response, the Department created two new performance measures to track the program's operational efficiency.


Training and Advisory Services (Title IV of the Civil Rights Act)

  2007 2008 2009
B.A. in millions $7.1 $7.0 $7.0

This program supports 10 regional Equity Assistance Centers, selected competitively, 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 in the identification of bias in instructional materials, and technical assistance on selection of instructional materials.

A PART analysis of this program conducted in 2005 produced a Results Not Demonstrated rating, primarily due to the absence of performance targets and data. In response, the Department developed a survey to measure the quality, relevance, and usefulness of the services provided by the program and to collect data that allow the comparison of this program to other technical assistance programs. The program is scheduled for review under the PART again in 2008.


Summary of the FY 2009 Budget  Table of contents  Special Education and Rehabilitative Services


For further information contact the ED Budget Service.

This page last modified—February 4, 2008 (mjj).