Search

The article focuses on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), particularly its Title I-A program, which provides federal aid for disadvantaged students, amended and reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). It discusses the accountability requirements under Title I-A, the flexibility granted to states in developing accountability including teacher training, English language acquisition, rural education, and programs for disadvantaged and neglected students.

The article focuses on Title I-A program, a key component of the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), authorizes federal aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support the education of disadvantaged students. It mentions that this program provides supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving students, particularly those attending schools with a high concentration of children from low-income families.

The article focuses on the federal funding for public elementary and secondary schools, particularly the revenue sources, federal contributions, and the analysis of funding provided through programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since FY2002. It details the revenue streams for public education, highlighting the share provided by the federal government and the overall trend of federal funding for ESEA programs over the years.

The article focuses on the funding dynamics for public elementary and secondary schools in the U.S., detailing the sources and trends in federal appropriations through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It examines the proportion of federal funding relative to state and local revenues, highlighting how federal contributions typically account for less than 10 percent of total funding, with exceptions during national crises such as the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The article focuses primary source of federal aid for elementary and secondary education is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It mentions ESEA was initially enacted in 1965 and was most recently comprehensively amended and reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act. It also mentions ESEA as amended by the ESSA continues to require states and public schools systems to focus on educational accountability as a condition for the receipt of grant funds.

The article discusses the provisions for equitable services for private school students and staff under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in the U.S. It offers an overview of the history of ESEA equitable services provisions and private school education. It mentions the higher rate of participation in ESEA programs among Catholic schools compared with other private schools. Also cited is the significance of the option for schools to consolidate ESEA formula grant funds.

The article provides an overview of the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act. It mentions that the act require states and public schools systems to focus on educational accountability as a condition for the receipt of grant funds. It also mentions that the program is also made for disadvantaged students, student assessment, migratory students, and neglected and delinquent students.

The article focuses on overview of the various types of public and private school choice options that exist and, when applicable, highlights federal programs that directly support choice. It mentions Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides funding for transportation to support intradistrict school choice. It also mentions charter school law asserts the requirements for establishing and operating a charter school including which entities may serve as charter school authorizers.

The article discusses the Impact Aid program, managed by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Topics mentioned include the importance of the Impact Aid program on the compensation to local educational agencies (LEAs) for financial burden from federal activities, the relation of the program on the Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and the development of the Department of Defense (DOD) Impact Aid programs.

The article focuses on the regulatory flexibility and waivers under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) federal student aid programs. Existing statutory and regulatory authorities are to support Title IV aid recipients and their families who at the time of the disaster were residing in an area designated as a federally declared disaster area as defined in the Stafford Act.

The article focuses on flexibilities related to Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). There are several provisions included in the ESEA that may be helpful in giving assistance in response to a disaster including flexibility related to Ministry of Education MOE requirements, charter schools, and funding flexibility.

The article discusses the use of the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Section 9401 waiver authority, which was the waiver authority in place prior to the enactment of the ESSA. No waivers have been granted since the enactment of the ESSA, information on waivers granted under the previous Section 9401 may be useful in determining the potential availability of waivers.

The article reports that the federal government has offered support for elementary and secondary education, as the support for public elementary and secondary education is less than 10 percent of the K-12 education revenues in the U.S. It states that most of the funds are offered under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act (Perkins).

Several appendices are presented which depict the structure of English Language Learner (ELL) in the U.S. including the glossary of ELL terms, the ELL resources from a website, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) program.

The article reporst that the U.S. federal government has provided support for elementary and secondary education for many decades. The federal support for public elementary and secondary education accounts for less than 10% of the nation’s overall K-12 education revenues. For the financial year 2017, about 38 billion dollars was appropriated for elementary and secondary education programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

The article reports on the implementation of policy changes to govern the transition of the English Language Learner (ELL) population in the U.S. It explains the significance of ELL market facts for school districts within the context of the policy stipulated in Title I and Title III of Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). It also discusses the educational requirements for ELLs that demand a solution pertaining to language instruction educational programs.

The article discusses the scope and payments made by the Impact Aid program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, for public K-12 education in the U.S. Section 8002 compensates local educational agencies (LEAs) for federal ownership of certain lands after 1938. Section 8003 compensates LEAs for enrolling children whose parents reside in federal land. Funds for construction and facilities upgrading are provided to LEAs with children living on Indian lands or children of military parents under Section 8007.

The article discusses the scope and payments made by the Impact Aid program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, for public K-12 education in the U.S. Section 8002 compensates local educational agencies (LEAs) for federal ownership of certain lands after 1938. Section 8003 compensates LEAs for enrolling children whose parents reside in federal land. Funds for construction and facilities upgrading are provided to LEAs with children living on Indian lands or children of military parents under Section 8007.

The primary source of federal aid to K-12 education is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), particularly its Title I, Part A program of Education for the Disadvantaged. The ESEA was initially enacted in 1965 (P.L. 8910), and was most recently amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA, P.L. 107-110). Virtually all ESEA programs are authorized through FY2008. During the current 110th Congress, congressional hearings are being conducted in anticipation of subsequent consideration of legislation to amend and extend the ESEA. The NCLBA initiated a major expansion of federal influence upon several aspects of public K-12 education, primarily with the aim of increasing the accountability of public school systems and individual public schools for improving achievement outcomes of all pupils, especially the disadvantaged. States must implement in all public schools and school districts a variety of standards-based assessments in reading, math and science; make complex annual adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations for each public school and district; and require virtually all public school teachers and aides to meet a variety of qualification requirements. State AYP policies must incorporate an ultimate goal of all public school pupils reaching a proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-14 school year. Further, participating states must enforce a series of increasingly substantial consequences for most of their schools and almost all school districts that fail to meet the AYP standards for two consecutive years or more. All of these requirements are associated with state participation in the ESEA Title I-A program. Other major ESEA programs provide grants to support the education of migrant students; recruitment of and professional development for teachers; language instruction for limited English proficient students; drug abuse prevention programs; after-school instruction and care; expansion of charter schools and other forms of public school choice; education services for Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native students; Impact Aid to compensate local educational agencies for taxes foregone due to certain federal activities; and a wide variety of innovative educational approaches or instruction to meet particular student needs. This report provides a brief overview of major provisions of the ESEA. It will not be updated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001, which amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), high schools that receive federal funds must provide certain student contact information to military recruiters upon request and must allow recruiters to have the same access to students as employers and colleges. Because the 110th Congress is likely to consider reauthorization of the ESEA, Congress may contemplate changes to the military recruitment provisions, either as part of reauthorization or as stand-alone legislation similar to proposals in previous legislative sessions. This report describes the NCLBA military recruitment provisions and discusses the legal issues that they may raise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental educational services are educational activities provided outside of normal school hours that are designed to augment or enhance the educational services provided during regular periods of instruction. Examples include tutoring in specific subject areas and preparation for academic achievement tests. The No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110) amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to authorize supplemental educational services as a means of school improvement. Local educational agencies (LEAs) are required to provide students from low-income families, who attend Title I-A schools that have been identified for a second year of school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, the opportunity to receive supplemental educational services from a state-approved provider. Public and private non-profit or for-profit providers are eligible to deliver supplemental educational services upon being approved by state educational agencies (SEAs). Parents of eligible students may select from approved providers offering services in the jurisdiction of the LEA where their child attends school, or that of a neighboring LEA. In instances where only a limited number of eligible children can be provided with supplemental educational services -- for example, because of funding constraints or the limited availability of approved providers -- priority must go to the lowest achieving eligible children. Providers are required to demonstrate that the services they provide contribute to the increased academic proficiency of the eligible children they serve, as measured according to state standards, in order to retain their status as approved providers. If there is sufficient demand for supplemental educational services, LEAs must dedicate an amount equal to between 5% and 20% of their Title I-A allocations to fund them. Costs per pupil are limited to the lesser of an LEA's Title I-A allocation per poor student, or the actual cost of services. Nationwide, there is considerable variation across LEAs in the maximum amount of funding available per pupil. As more schools are identified for a second year of school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, LEAs are being required to offer increasing numbers of students from low-income families the opportunity to receive supplemental services. It appears that greater proportions of eligible students are choosing to receive supplemental educational services than to change schools under the ESEA Title I-A public school choice provisions. However, there have been challenges to implementation, such as the availability of services in rural areas, timely notification of parents regarding their children's eligibility for services, negotiation of contracts with providers for service delivery, and measurement of the effectiveness of supplemental educational services in improving student academic achievement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 107th Congress is considering proposals to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Much of the debate over these proposals has been focused on issues related to state and local accountability for, and flexibility in the use of, federal aid funds. Current federal elementary and secondary education assistance programs have a broad range of accountability requirements, including: targeting of resources on specific "high need" pupil groups, localities, or schools; limitations on the authorized uses of funds; fiscal accountability requirements, such as maintenance of effort; procedural requirements, such as parental participation or equitable treatment of pupils attending non-public schools; staff qualifications; reporting; outcome; and evaluation requirements. Beginning in 1994, several authorities have been adopted that provide expanded flexibility in the use of federal aid. The 106th Congress adopted legislation that modified and expanded eligibility for the Ed-Flex program, in which authority to grant waivers is provided to state educational agencies, and provided a new authority for small, rural local educational agencies (LEAs) to transfer funds among selected ESEA programs. During the 107th Congress, the House and Senate have passed different versions of H.R. 1, legislation to amend and extend the ESEA, with new forms of both outcome accountability and flexibility authority. Both bills would expand requirements for pupil assessment, and for standards for adequate yearly progress plus performance-based awards and sanctions for schools, LEAs, and states. The House version of H.R. 1 would also authorize all states and LEAs to transfer funds among selected programs, and authorize a broader program consolidation authority for up to 100 LEAs; while the Senate version would authorize up to seven states and 25 LEAs to eliminate a wide range of program requirements in return for increased accountability in terms of pupil outcomes. Debate over the optional performance agreement/grant consolidation proposals in particular has sometimes been contentious, mainly because they would replace the current relatively wide range of types of accountability provisions with a strategy of accountability established almost totally on the basis of pupil achievement outcomes. These proposals implicitly place substantial emphasis on adoption and implementation by the states of challenging standards and assessments in order to establish a basis for meaningful outcome accountability. Supporters of proposals to increase state and LEA flexibility in the use of federal aid argue that the current accountability requirements are unnecessarily burdensome and rigid, and detract attention from the goal of increasing academic achievement. In response, opponents of these proposals argue that aspects of accountability, in addition to those related to outcomes, are important federal priorities, that many of the non-outcome related accountability requirements may already be waived if deemed burdensome, and that there is little assurance that state-determined performance goals will be challenging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes federal aid to state and local educational agencies (SEAs, LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children. Title I grants are used to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving children attending schools with relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families. For FY2000, the total funding for Title I, Part A is $8.6 billion. The Title I allocation formulas are important not only because of the size of this program, but also because some or all of the grants under numerous other federal education programs are made in proportion to Title I allocations. Title I was last reauthorized and substantially revised in 1994, by the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), and it will likely be considered for reauthorization by the 107th Congress. In general, federal aid program formula factors are intended to reflect the basic purpose of the program, putting congressional intent into concrete form. In addition to targeting schools and districts with the greatest need for Title I services, the formulas may also attempt to recognize differences in fiscal capacity and in the costs of providing program services, and provide incentives to adopt certain policies deemed desirable, such as increased state and local spending for education or greater equity in school finance systems. Two formulas -- Basic and Concentration Grants -- are currently used to allocate Title I funds. Two further formulas -- Targeted and Education Finance Incentive Grants -- were authorized in 1994 but have not yet been implemented. While there are four authorized formulas, all funds are combined at the LEA level and used for a single program. The two primary factors in both of the allocation formulas currently in use are a population factor -- primarily school-age children in poor families, according to the latest available census data -- and an expenditure factor, which is based on each state's average expenditure per pupil for public elementary and secondary education. Within LEAs, Title I funds are allocated to the schools with relatively high percentages or numbers of pupils from low-income families. While the Title I allocation formulas were a major focus of debates during the last reauthorization of Title I, few of the numerous major formula changes adopted in 1994 have been fully implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a report of the U.S. Congressional Research Service that focuses on various types of public and private school choice options that are available in the U.S. It mentions that Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides funding for transportation to support intradistrict school choice for students attending public schools. It also mentions that federal programs directly supporting public and private school choice and homeschooling as a school choice option.

The article reports that the existing statutory and regulatory requirements provide the Secretary with authority and flexibility to respond to a disaster without the need for additional legislation. The section starts with an examination of waiver authority available to the Secretary under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The text illustrates how waivers were used in response to recent disasters.

The article focuses on the definition of persistent poverty in American counties. Topics discussed include computation of poverty rate with regard to family income, economic hardship and poverty status of each individual, poverty estimates as per the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program (SAIPE), and the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editor discusses various reports in the issue on the topics including one on students affected by natural disasters, the other on education-related disaster recovery and the third on Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

The article discusses the methodology used to determine Title I-A grants under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the primary source of federal aid to elementary and secondary education. It notes that a maximum grant is calculated by multiplying a "formula child count," consisting primarily of estimated numbers of school-age children in poor families, by an expenditure factor based on state average per pupil expenditures for public elementary and secondary education.

The article reports that the existing statutory and regulatory requirements provide the Secretary with authority and flexibility to respond to a disaster without the need for additional legislation.

The article introduces the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which is the primary source of federal aid to elementary and secondary education.

The authorizations of appropriations for most programs of federal aid to elementary and secondary (grades K-12) education, under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), expired at the end of FY2000. While the 106 th Congress extensively considered several bills which would have reauthorized and amended most of these programs, only legislation extending the Impact Aid (ESEA Title VIII) and Even Start Family Literacy (ESEA Title I, Part B) programs was enacted. Selected other programs, such as the Class Size Reduction program, have been initiated and continued solely through annual appropriations legislation. The 107 th Congress is considering proposals to amend and extend the ESEA. On June 14, 2001, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 1, the RBetter Education for Students and Teachers (BEST) Act,S while the House passed its version of H.R. 1, the RNo Child Left Behind Act of 2001,S on May 23. Conference committee consideration of the differing versions of H.R. 1 is expected to begin shortly. These two versions of H.R. 1 have several common characteristics. Both of them would: expand upon the existing pupil outcome accountability requirements of the ESEA Title I program for the education of disadvantaged pupils; require participating states to assess pupil performance in each of grades 3-8 (contingent on appropriation of minimum amounts for state assessment grants under the Senate bill), and to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (or in the case of the House bill, an alternative assessment); provide for public school choice and supplemental services options for pupils attending unsuccessful schools; authorize expanded programs intended to enhance teacher quality; require the publication of Rreport cardsS on the performance of schools, local educational agencies (LEAs), and states; and authorize bonuses for especially successful schools, LEAs, and/or states, as well as sanctions for states which fail to meet their performance objectives. In contrast, only the House passed version of H.R. 1 would require states to develop plans providing that all public school teachers will be Rfully qualifiedS by December 2005; significantly increase required qualifications for teacher aides hired with Title I funds; authorize all states and LEAs to transfer funds among selected programs, and authorize a broader program consolidation authority for up to 100 LEAs. Only the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1 would require states to have a plan to ensure that all core subject teachers in schools in which 50% or more of the students are low-income be highly qualified; require states to adopt assessments in science and standards in history; authorize up to seven states and 25 LEAs to eliminate a wide range of program requirements in return for increased accountability in terms of pupil outcomes; and both authorize and appropriate increasing amounts for the non-ESEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, reaching an estimated Rfull fundingS level by FY2011. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]