Tag Archives: Local Education Agencies

How to Apply

Fiscal Year 2022 Competition

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 competition has now closed. No more applications are being accepted at this time.

Click here to join the Office of Indian Education Listserv to get the latest news and updates.

ESSA Legislation Table of Contents

Table of contents of Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.










The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended through P.L. 115-224 [1.09 MB]

Disclaimer: This website is based on text downloaded from the House Office of Legislative Counsel. While this publication does not represent the official version of the ESSA, substantial efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of its contents. The official version of the ESSA is found in the United States Statutes at Large and in the United States Code. The legal effect to be given to the Statutes at Large and the United States Code is established by statute (1 U.S.C. 112, 204).


Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

[As Amended Through P.L. 115–224, Enacted July 31, 2018]


SECTION 1. [20 U.S.C. 6301 note] SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ”Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965”.


SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:


TITLE I—IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE DISADVANTAGED


PART A—IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS OPERATED BY LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES


PART B—STATE ASSESSMENT GRANTS


PART C—EDUCATION OF MIGRATORY CHILDREN


PART D—PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WHO ARE NEGLECTED, DELINQUENT, OR AT-RISK





PART E—FLEXIBILITY FOR EQUITABLE PER-PUPIL FUNDING


PART F—GENERAL PROVISIONS


TITLE II—PREPARING, TRAINING, AND RECRUITING HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS, AND OTHER SCHOOL LEADERS

Sec. 2002. Definitions.
Sec. 2003. Authorization of appropriations.


PART A—SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION


PART B—NATIONAL ACTIVITIES






PART C—GENERAL PROVISIONS


TITLE III—LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS AND IMMIGRANT STUDENTS


PART A—ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, LANGUAGE ENHANCEMENT, AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ACT





PART B—GENERAL PROVISIONS


TITLE IV—21st CENTURY SCHOOLS


PART A—STUDENT SUPPORT AND ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT GRANTS


  • Subpart 2—Internet Safety


  • PART B—21st CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS


    PART C—EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY THROUGH QUALITY CHARTER SCHOOLS


    PART D—MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE


    PART E—FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION PROGRAMS


    PART F—NATIONAL ACTIVITIES






    TITLE V—FLEXIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

    PART A—FUNDING TRANSFERABILITY FOR STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES


    PART B—RURAL EDUCATION INITIATIVE





    PART C—GENERAL PROVISIONS


    TITLE VI—INDIAN, NATIVE HAWAIIAN, AND ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION

    PART A—INDIAN EDUCATION







    PART B—NATIVE HAWAIIAN EDUCATION


    PART C—ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION


    TITLE VII—IMPACT AID


    TITLE VIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

    PART A—DEFINITIONS


    PART B—FLEXIBILITY IN THE USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER FUNDS


    PART C—COORDINATION OF PROGRAMS; CONSOLIDATED STATE AND LOCAL PLANS AND APPLICATIONS


    PART D—WAIVERS


    PART E—APPROVAL AND DISAPPROVAL OF STATE PLANS AND LOCAL APPLICATIONS


    PART F—UNIFORM PROVISIONS






    PART G—EVALUATIONS



Additional Support and Technical Assistance

Additional Support and Technical Assistance

Guidance Documents

Technical Assistance Webinars

  • May 6, 2015 – ESEA Flexibility Renewal Guidance Process Webinar:
    Powerpoint /
    Audio
  • December 15, 2014 – ESEA Flexibility Data Profiles Webinar:
    PowerPoint / Audio
  • November 20, 2014 – Introduction to ESEA Flexibility Renewal Process Guidance Webinar:
    PowerPoint / Audio
  • April 24, 2014 – Technical Assistance Survey Webinar: Currently Available and Upcoming Resources
    PowerPoint /

    Audio

  • June 12, 2013 — No. 4 Inclusive Design: Building Evaluation Systems that Support Educators of Students with Disabilities
    PowerPoint /

    Audio

  • May 10, 2013 — No. 3 Building or Buying Assessments of Measuring Growth for Non-Tested Grades and Subjects
    PowerPoint /

    Audio

  • May 3, 2013 — No. 2 Use of Student Learning Objectives to Measure Growth for Teachers of Non-Tested Grades and Subjects
    PowerPoint /

    Audio

  • April 26, 2013 — No. 1 Use of School-Wide Growth to Measure Growth for Teachers of Non-Tested Grades and Subjects
    PowerPoint /

    Audio

  • September 26, 2011 — ESEA Flexibility: An Overview
    PowerPoint /

    Audio

  • September 28, 2011 — ESEA Flexibility: Developing the SEA Request

    PowerPoint /

    Audio

  • October 5, 2011 — Questions and Answers

    PowerPoint / Audio

  • October 26, 2011 — Integrating AMOs into ESEA Flexibility

    PowerPoint
  • November 9, 2011 — Identification of Schools and Incentives, Interventions, and Supports

    PowerPoint slides / Audio
  • January 11, 2012 — ESEA Flexibility: Addressing Students with Disabilities and English Learners

    MS PowerPoint slides / Audio
  • January 18, 2012 — ESEA Flexibility: Lessons Learned from November 14th Submissions

    MS PowerPoint slides / Audio
  • February 2, 2012 — ESEA Flexibility: Questions and Answers

    MS PowerPoint slides / Audio
  • February 14, 2012 — ESEA Flexibility: Updated Request and Review Guidance

    PDF PowerPoint slides / Audio

Forum on ESEA Flexibility

The Forum on ESEA Flexibility, held September 29-30 in Washington, DC, provided states with an overview of ESEA Flexibility and an opportunity to learn from peer states and national experts about promising approaches to key policy areas addressed in ESEA Flexibility.

September 29-30, 2011, Washington, D.C.
Meeting Agenda

Meeting Sessions

Opening Remarks

Teacher and Leader Development Systems- Session One: Tennessee

The Role of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Teacher and Leader Development Systems- Session Two: Massachusetts

Differentiated Accountability: Framing Remarks

Differentiated Accountability – Session One: New Approaches to Measuring School and District Performance

ESEA Flexibility: A Discussion with Secretary Duncan

Differentiated Accountability – Session Two: Rewarding Success and Supporting Priority and Focus Schools

Back to Main Page

Schoolwide Programs

Schoolwide programs address the educational needs of children living in impoverished communities with comprehensive strategies for improving the whole school so every student achieves high levels of academic proficiency. Schoolwide programs have great latitude to determine how to organize their operations and allocate the multiple funding sources available to them. They do not have to identify particular children as eligible for services or separately track Federal dollars. Instead, schoolwide programs can use all allocated funds to increase the amount and quality of learning time.

For additional information about schoolwide programs see:

Archived Information

Reports on State Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act

School Years 2010-11

April 2013

  • Complete Publication
    MS WORD (895k) | PDF (1605k)

School Years 2005–06 and 2006–07

September 2010

  • Complete Publication
    MS WORD (5465k) | PDF (4731k)

November 2009

School Year 2003-04

April 2007

  • Complete Publications

    MS WORD (3630kb) | PDF
    (607K)

School Year 2002-03

February 2006

  • Complete publication

    MS WORD (3630kb) | PDF
    (607K)

School Year 2001-02

September 2004

  • Complete publication

    MS WORD (1.8M) | PDF
    (573K)

School Year 2000-01

October 2003

  • Complete publication
    MS WORD (1.6M) | PDF (627K)

School Year 1999-00

July 2002

  • Complete publication
    MS WORD (1.5M) | PDF (4.3M)

School Year 1998-99

October 2000

School Year 1997-98

August 1999

PDF (388K)

Title I Achievement-Focused Monitoring

Performance

GPRA

Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the following program performance measures have been established to assess the effectiveness of the School Climate Transformation Grant—Local Educational Agency program:

  1. The number of training and/or technical assistance events to support implementation with fidelity provided annually by LEAs to schools implementing a multi-tiered system of support.
  2. Number and percentage of schools annually that report an improved school climate based on the results of the EDSCLS or similar tool.
  3. Number and percentage of schools annually that are implementing a multi-tiered system of support framework with fidelity.
  4. Number and percentage of schools annually that are implementing opioid abuse prevention and mitigation strategies.
  5. Number and percentage of schools that report an annual decrease in suspensions and expulsions related to possession or use of alcohol.
  6. Number and percentage of schools that report an annual decrease in suspensions and expulsions related to possession or use of other drugs.

For specific requirements on grantee reporting, please go to the ED Performance Report Form 524B at http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.htm.

Vermont Decision Letter for State Accountability Plans under the Consolidated State Application Process

July 27, 2006

The Honorable Richard H. Cate
Commissioner
Vermont Department of Education
120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-2501

Dear Commissioner Cate:

I am writing in response to Vermont’s request to amend its State accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Following our discussions with your staff, the requested changes that are aligned with NCLB are now included in an amended State accountability plan that Vermont submitted to the Department on July 25th, 2006. The revised and fully approved plan will be posted on the Department’s website. A summary of the approved amendment is enclosed with this letter.

As you know, any additional requests to amend the Vermont accountability plan must be submitted to the Department for review and approval as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I. Please note that approval of Vermont’s accountability plan does not constitute approval of the State’s standards and assessment system.

Please also be aware that approval of Vermont’s accountability plan for Title I, including the amendment approved above, does not indicate that the plan complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

NCLB has provided a vehicle for States to raise the achievement of all students and to close the achievement gap. We are seeing the results of our combined endeavor; achievement is rising throughout the nation. I appreciate Vermont’s efforts to raise the achievement of all students and hold all schools accountable. I wish you continued success in your school improvement efforts. If you need any additional assistance in your efforts to implement the standards, assessments, and accountability provisions of NCLB, please do not hesitate to contact Catherine Freeman (catherine.freeman@ed.gov) or Valeria Ford (a href=”mailto:valeria.ford@ed.gov”>valeria.ford@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

Enclosure

Governor Jim Douglas
Gail Taylor


Amendments to the Vermont Accountability Plan

The following is a summary of the State’s approved amendments. Please refer to the Department’s website www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html) for the complete Vermont accountability plan.

Accountability system includes all schools and districts in the state and holds all schools to the same criteria (Elements 1.1 and 1.2)

Revision: In September 2004, revised Rules for Vermont’s School Accountability System Based on Student Achievement took effect, replacing the rules adopted in July 2000. A copy of the rules is attached.

With the implementation of NECAP testing, Vermont no longer uses the Small Schools Review described in the 2003 Workbook. Instead, the State will make adequate yearly progress (AYP) decisions for all schools for the All Student Group, regardless of the “n” size, using the indexes. Vermont will apply a minimum ‘n’ of 40 or more students for subgroup decisions for one year of results (no longer combining two years of results into a rolling average) and continue to use a confidence interval of .01.

Accountability system incorporates the academic achievement standards (Element 1.3)

Revision: For the new NECAP tests, Vermont has adopted four performance levels (with corresponding index values) ? proficient with distinction (500 points), proficient (500 points), partially proficient (375 points), and substantially below proficient (250 and 125 points based on scale scores within that achievement level). Vermont must report percent proficient regardless of whether the index scores are reported.

Accountability system provides information in a timely manner (Element 1.4)

Revision: As indicated above, the new NECAP assessments in grades 3-8 are given in the fall, with results available in late winter/early spring. This will become the case for high schools with the fall 2007 tests.

AYP decisions for 9-12 high schools will be made as soon after receiving and verifying spring 2006 NSRE results as possible – most likely October 2006. These decisions will apply to SY06-07. In spring 2007, when we make AYP decisions to apply to SY07-08, decisions for 9-12 high schools will be based only on the academic indicator (graduation rate) for this one-time transitional decision. In spring 2008, results from NECAP 2007 fall testing at grades 3-8 and grade 11 will determine school status for SY08-09.

Accountability system includes rewards and sanctions (Element 1.6)

Revision: Since the criteria for Academic Achievement Recognition (AAR) must be based on AYP results, schools that meet the criteria for receiving AAR will have that status published on their AYP report and information about these schools will be released as part of the AYP press release.

Accountability system has a consistent definition of full academic year (Elements 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3)

Revision: Vermont has adopted a new definition for “full academic year” because the State is tracking students through its fall and spring data collections. The new definition holds schools accountable for those students who have been continuously enrolled from the first day of school to the last.

Accountability system expects all student subgroups, public schools, and local educational agencies (LEAs) to reach proficiency by 2013-2014 (Element 3.1)

Revision: With the adoption of NECAP tests in grades 3-8, Vermont no longer averages test results over two years; annual determinations are made with one year of results. In addition, adoption of the new tests no longer requires placing equal weight on basic and analytical reporting areas, as each new NECAP (reading, mathematics, and writing) test reports one overall score. Vermont will continue to index the 10th grade NSRE as it has in the past until the new high school NECAP tests are available.

AYP decisions for 9-12 high schools will be made as soon after receiving and verifying spring 2006 NSRE results as possible – most likely October 2006. These decisions will apply to SY06-07. In spring 2007, when Vermont makes AYP decisions to apply to SY07-08, decisions for 9-12 high schools will be based only on the academic indicator (graduation rate) for this one-time transitional decision. In spring 2008, results from NECAP 2007 fall testing at grades 3-8 and grade 11 will determine school status for SY08-09.

Accountability system establishes intermediate goals (Element 3.2)

Revision: Vermont has set new grade span annual measurable objectives (AMOs) using the original 20th percentile model. The State has adopted two grade spans AMOs for the spring 2006 AYP determinations ? grades 3-8 and 7-12. The AMOs for grades 9-12 will continue as before until new NECAP tests are introduced in school year 2007-2008.

Accountability system determines annually the progress of schools and districts (Element 4.1)

Revision: Through Act 64 of 2003 and Act 114 of 2004, the Vermont legislature authorized the Commissioner of Education to determine annually whether schools and LEAs are meeting State standards and making AYP through school year 2006. This authority is extended through school year 2008 pending legislative approval.

Accountability system includes limited English proficient (LEP) students (Element 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4)

Revision: To ensure reliable decisions, Vermont will apply AYP determinations only to subgroups with a minimum n-size of 40 or more students in each reporting area in one year and across all grade levels.

LEP students are included in the academic assessments following the flexibility provided by U.S. Department of Education. LEP students who have attended school in the United States for less than one year are not required to participate in Reading/English Language Arts assessments, but must participate in the mathematics and English language proficiency assessments. Vermont clarifies that it does not count fluent English proficient students in the LEP subgroup at this time.

Additional indicators are valid and reliable (Element 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3)

Revision: Vermont’s updated calculation of graduation rate for high schools is a longitudinal cohort count and will allow for the disaggregation of subgroups, if needed, for safe harbor. Because this calculation counts transfers-in for the first time, the State has set the graduation rate at 72%. This change does not impact the number of schools that are below the threshold for not making AYP.

For the spring 2006 AYP decision, Vermont will use the achievement of students in the bottom performance level of the NECAP Reading test for all grades tested in a school as the “additional academic indicator” for AYP purposes. This aligns with the State’s past use of the bottom two-achievement levels of the NSRE Reading Basic Understanding reporting area for schools that did not have grade 2 VT-DRA results. The criterion for identification remains unchanged at 15% or more of students in the lowest achievement level.


Return to state-by-state listing

Vermont Decision Letter for State Accountability Plans under the Consolidated State Application Process

August 16, 2005

Richard H. Cate
Commissioner
Vermont Department of Education
120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-2501

Dear Commissioner Cate:

I am writing in response to your May 31, 2005 letter in which you express interest in the interim flexibility announced by the Secretary in April 2005 regarding calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP) for the students with disabilities subgroup. Your request for this flexibility would not affect accountability determinations until Vermont’s spring 2006 test administration, resulting in an adjustment to the 2006-20 school year AYP determinations.

We are pleased that you are interested in this flexibility; however, we do not yet know what flexibility will be offered next year. The Secretary expressed her willingness to provide States this interim flexibility for the 2004-05 school year while the U.S. Department of Education promulgates a regulation to permit States to develop modified achievement standards and aligned assessments for certain students with disabilities. As we move forward developing this regulation, we will know better what flexibility, if any, would be beneficial for 2005-06. Be assured you will have an opportunity to resubmit your request.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review Vermont’s request for interim flexibility. We look forward to working with you further as the department establishes a regulation regarding the development of modified achievement standards and aligned assessments for students with disabilities and any further associated flexibility. If I can be of any additional assistance to Vermont in its efforts to implement other aspects of NCLB, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

cc: Governor Jim Douglas

Table of Contents Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

Decision Letter on Request to Amend Rhode Island State Accountability Plan

May 12, 2009

The Honorable Peter McWalters
Commissioner of Education
Rhode Island Department of Education
Shepard Building
255 Westminster Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903

Dear Commissioner McWalters:

On behalf of Secretary Duncan, I want to thank you for all your hard work over the past 17 years as Commissioner of Education at the Rhode Island Department of Education. Your contributions on behalf of Rhode Island’s children have been immeasurable. As you may know, the Secretary is traveling the country and listening to states, districts, and other stakeholders talk about the ways in which the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) can be improved. These conversations will inform the next reauthorization of the statute. In the meantime, we will push towards our reform goals under the authority of, and in accordance with, the existing statute and regulations.

I am writing in response to Rhode Island’s request to amend its state accountability plan under Title I of the ESEA. Following discussions between the Department and your staff, Rhode Island made a change to its accountability plan, which is now included in the amended state accountability plan that Rhode Island submitted to the Department on January 15, 2009. I am pleased to approve Rhode Island’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website. A summary of Rhode Island’s requested amendment is enclosed with this letter. As you know, any further requests to amend Rhode Island’s accountability plan must be submitted to the Department for review and approval as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I of the ESEA.

Please also be aware that approval of Rhode Island’s accountability plan for Title I, including the amendment approved herein, does not indicate that the plan complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

I am confident that Rhode Island will continue to advance its efforts to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. If you need any additional assistance to implement the standards, assessment, and accountability provisions of the ESEA, please do not hesitate to contact (Patrick.Rooney@ed.gov) or (Sue.Rigney@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Joseph C. Conaty

Enclosure
cc: Governor Donald L. Carcieri
Mary Ann Snider

Amendment to Rhode Island’s Accountability Plan

The following is a summary of Rhode Island’s amendment request. Please refer to the Department’s website (www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html) for Rhode Island’s complete accountability plan.

Acceptable amendment

The following amendment is aligned with the statute and regulations.

Graduation rate (Element 7.1)

Revision: Rhode Island will begin using a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b), as amended in October 2008. For adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations based on 2008–09 assessment results, Rhode Island will use a graduation rate target of 70.1 percent. Rhode Island will also include, for the first time, an “improvement” component for the graduation rate calculation. For any district, school, or subgroup that does not meet the graduation rate target, the state will examine whether the district, school or subgroup experienced a 10 percent decrease in the gap between the prior year’s graduation rate and the 2013–14 goal of 90 percent.

Please note that Rhode Island’s graduation rate target and goal are approved only for use in making AYP determinations based on the results of assessments administered during the 2008–09 school year. In accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b)(6)(ii), Rhode Island must submit for peer review and Department approval its graduation rate goal and targets for 2009–10 and beyond.


Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans