Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
54977993
label
Department of Education Fiscal Year 2001 Volume I [publication] [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
54977993
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Department of Education Fiscal Year 2001 Volume I [publication] [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Bethany Little's Publication Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
54977993
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-41022701-20130371S-034-004-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
fcdf66bac9164ddf
ocrText
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
READING EXCELLENCE
Divider Title:
Department of Education
READING EXCELLENCE
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request
CONTENTS
Page
Appropriations language
E-1
Analysis of language provisions and changes
E-2
Amounts available for obligation
E-3
Obligations by object classification
E-4
Summary of changes
E-5
Authorizing legislation
E-6
Appropriations history
E-7
Activity:
Reading and literacy grants
E-8
READING EXCELLENCE
[For necessary expenses to carry out the Reading Excellence Act, $65,000,000, which
shall become available on July 1, 2000 and shall remain available through September 30, 2001
and $195,000,000, which shall become available on October 1, 2000 and remain available
through September 30, 2001.]' (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2000, as enacted
by section 1000(a)(4) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P. L. 106-113).)
NOTES
No FY 2001 appropriation language is provided because the requested resources are proposed for later
transmittal upon enactment of proposed legislation to revise and reauthorize programs currently authorized under
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Each language provision that is followed by a footnote reference is explained in the Analysis of Language
Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriation language.
E-1
READING EXCELLENCE
Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes
Language Provision
Explanation
1 [For necessary expenses to carry out
This language provides for funds to be
the Reading Excellence Act, $65,000,000,
appropriated on a forward-funded basis and
which shall become available on July 1, 2000
provides that a portion of the funds are
and shall remain available through
available in an advance appropriation that
September 30, 2001 and $195,000,000,
becomes available for obligation on
which shall become available on October 1,
October 1 of the following fiscal year.
2000 and remain available through
September 30, 2001.]
E-2
READING EXCELLENCE
Amounts Available for Obligation
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Discretionary authority:
Annual appropriation
$260,000
$260,000
$286,000
Advance for succeeding fiscal year
0
-195,000
-195,000
Advance from prior year
210,000
0
195,000
Real transfer to Special Education for:
Grants to States
-210,000
0
0
Subtotal, budget authority
260,000
65,000
286,000
Unobligated balance, start of year
0
27,373
0
Unobligated balance, end of year
-27,373
0
0
Total, direct obligations
232,627
92,373
286,000
E-3
READING EXCELLENCE
Obligations by Object Classification
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Contractual services and supplies:
Advisory and assistance services
0
$5,000
$5,000
Peer review
$87
200
200
Other services
0
3,900
3,900
Subtotal
87
9,100
9,100
Grants, subsidies, and contributions
232,540
83,273
276,900
Total, direct obligations
232,627
92,373
286,000
E-4
READING EXCELLENCE
Summary of Changes
($000s)
2000
$260,000
2001
286,000
Net change
+26,000
2000 base
Change from base
Increases:
Program:
Increase to provide additional grants to States to
provide our children with the readiness skills and
support they need in early childhood to learn to
read once they enter school, to help ensure that
all children read well and independently by the
end of third grade, and to improve the
instructional practices of teachers and other
instructional staff in elementary school.
$260,000
+$26,000
Subtotal, increases
+26,000
Net change
+26,000
E-5
READING EXCELLENCE
Authorizing Legislation
($000s)
2000
2000
2001
2001
Activity
Authorized
Estimate
Authorized
Request
Reading and literacy grants (ESEA II - C)
$260,000
$260,000
To be determined²
$286,000
Total definite authorization
260,000
Total appropriation
260,000
286,000
1 Of the amount appropriated, 1.5 percent shall be reserved for a national evaluation (ESEA Section 2257 (a)); $5,000 thousand shall be reserved for
E-6
information dissemination (ESEA Section 2258); and $10,000 thousand shall be reserved for Even Start Reading Excellence (ESEA Section 1202 (c)).
2 The current authorization expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
READING EXCELLENCE
Appropriations History
($000s)
Budget
Estimate
House
Senate
to Congress
Allowance
Allowance
Appropriation
1999
$50,000¹
0
0
$260,000
2000
286,000
$200,000
$90,000
65,000
2000 Advance for 2001
0
0
195,000
195,000
2001
91,000
2001 Advance for 2002
195,000
1 Excludes $210,000 thousand provided in the Department of Education Appropriations Act of 1998 for the Child
Literacy Initiative, which would have become available on October 1 of fiscal year 1999 if specifically authorized by
July 1, 1998. The Appropriations Act provided further that if an authorization was not enacted by then, the funds
would be transferred to the Special Education account to be available on July 1, 1999, for the same purposes as that
account. Enactment of authorizing legislation did not occur by July 1, 1998; the funds were transferred to the
Special Education account.
E-7
READING EXCELLENCE
Reading and literacy grants
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part C)
FY 2001 Authorization ($000s): To be determined 1
Budget authority ($000s):
2000
2001
Change
$260,000
$286,000
+$26,000
1 The current authorization expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
In 1998, Congress enacted the Reading Excellence Act as an amendment to Title II of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The Administration's proposal for
reauthorizing ESEA would move the program to Title I. Under both current law and the
reauthorization proposal, the program is designed to:
provide children with the readiness skills and support they need in early childhood so that
they learn to read once they enter school;
help ensure that all children read well and independently by the end of the third grade;
support programs to assist kindergarten children who are not ready for the transition to
first grade, particularly students experiencing difficulties with reading skills; and
improve the instructional practices of teachers and other instructional staff in elementary
schools, based on scientifically based reading research.
The Department makes competitive, 3-year grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) that
have established a State reading and literacy partnership. Partnerships must consist of the
Governor, the chief State school officer, members of the State legislature, and representatives
of eligible local educational agencies (LEAs), community-based organizations, State directors of
Federal programs supporting reading instruction, parents, teachers, and family literacy service
providers.
SEAs that receive funding make 2-year subgrants, called "local reading improvement grants,"
on a competitive basis to LEAs that have at least one school in Title I school improvement
status, have the highest or second highest percentage of poverty in the State, or have the
E-8
READING EXCELLENCE
Reading and literacy grants
highest or second highest number of poor children in the State. SEAs must use at least
80 percent of their awards to make local reading improvement grants to school districts to:
provide professional development for teachers based on scientifically based reading
research and practice;
operate tutoring programs after school, before school, during non-instructional periods
during the school day, on weekends, or during the summer;
provide family literacy services through partnerships with community-based organizations,
early childhood organizations, adult education programs, family literacy organizations,
public libraries, colleges and universities, or other organizations to improve the teaching
of reading and the reading achievement of children and their families; and
provide additional services to kindergarten students who need extra support to improve
their reading skills.
Each State may also use up to 5 percent of its funding for State-level administrative activities,
such as technical assistance to local partnerships, program evaluation (up to 2 percent of
funds), and coordination with other literacy-related activities.
In addition, States must award at least one "tutorial assistance grant" to LEAs most in need of
help. LEAs that receive these subgrants contract with one or more tutorial assistance providers
for after-school tutoring assistance, located at schools and other sites, to children in need of
additional reading assistance. Parents who chose to enroll their child in one of these tutoring
programs work with the school to decide which tutoring program best meets the needs of the
child.
The Act requires the Secretary to reserve $5 million for the National Institute for Literacy to
carry out technical assistance and dissemination of materials and information about best
practices. The Administration's proposed legislation would allow the Secretary to reserve up to
1 percent of program funds for program improvement and technical assistance activities directly
related to State grant activities, in addition to the $5 million reservation for the National Institute
for Literacy. In addition, current law reserves $10 million for Even Start Statewide Family
Literacy initiatives; the Administration's reauthorization proposal would shift this funding
authority to the Even Start program.
This is a forward-funded program that includes advance appropriations. A portion of the funds
becomes available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and
remains available for 15 months through September 30 of the following year. The remaining
funds become available on October 1 of the fiscal year following the appropriations act and
remain available for 12 months, expiring at the same time as the forward-funded portion.
E-9
READING EXCELLENCE
Reading and literacy grants
Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:
($000s)
1996
0 1
1997
0 1
1998
0 1
1999
$260,000
2000
260,000
1 Program not authorized.
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
For fiscal year 2001, the Administration proposes to fund the Reading and Literacy Grants
program at $286 million, $26 million above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation for the program.
The increase will allow the Department to serve more children by providing grants to
approximately 27 additional States.
Funding at the requested level will continue to support: (1) quality teacher development in the
area of reading; and (2) extended learning for children to practice and further develop their
reading skills. The purpose of this program - to help all children read well and independently
by the end of the third grade - is a specific objective in the Department's Strategic Plan and
one of the Administration's priorities.
Far too many young people are struggling through school without having mastered reading, the
most essential and basic skill. On the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), 68 percent of all fourth graders in high poverty schools scored below the "basic"
reading level. Research shows that students who fail to read well by fourth grade have a
greater likelihood of dropping out and a lifetime of diminished success. For these reasons,
providing consistent support for reading success from the earliest age has critically important
benefits. These include helping improve reading gains, reducing the number of children who
fall behind in reading, and providing additional help to children who need it.
The Reading and Literacy Grants program is the first comprehensive, nationwide effort to
implement the features of high-quality scientifically based reading research in school reading
instruction. Local reading programs work with teachers and school administrators to improve
instruction, work on family literacy to improve the home learning environment, and mobilize
tutors, reading coordinators, and experts in communities and States to assist and improve
existing literacy efforts.
The Reading and Literacy Grants program emphasizes improving the quality of teaching in the
area of reading by requiring all grantees to provide professional development to teachers and
other instructional staff that is based on scientifically based reading research. The program
also supports States and communities nationwide in building on what they have already done to
E-10
READING EXCELLENCE
Reading and literacy grants
promote literacy and to develop new partnerships linking parents, teachers, trained reading
professionals, and trained tutors with school, library, and community literacy efforts.
In 1999, the Department awarded Reading and Literacy Grants to 17 States to enable them to
create programs that use scientifically based reading research to improve the reading skills of
elementary school students, particularly at-risk students who need additional help during the
critical primary grades of kindergarten through grade 3. Among the States that received grants
are:
Utah -- Utah's program operate in collaboration with the University of Utah to infuse the
latest findings from scientifically based reading research into curricula and instruction in
Utah schools with the highest concentration of poor children. In addition to State staff, a
team of six technical specialists will work directly with schools and communities
throughout the State to provide technical services, conduct professional development
workshops over two years for district and school leadership teams, and monitor
implementation of the subgrants. Priority will be given to school districts that demonstrate
a commitment to programs that meet the needs of limited English proficient students.
Rhode Island -- Lessons learned from activities funded with Rhode Island's grant will
serve as a keystone for primary grade reform throughout the State. The State will
sponsor a variety of workshops that reflect scientifically based reading research and
provide technical assistance to eligible districts and schools to help them develop
comprehensive plans to improve reading. Local schools must participate in a
professional development network organized by the State for teacher leaders, as well as
organize school-based professional development to construct a comprehensive,
systematic reading program for teachers and administrators. The University of Rhode
Island's Family Resource Partnership will evaluate the Reading Excellence program and
provide feedback to the State and participating schools and districts during the three
years of the grant.
Texas -- Texas will develop a comprehensive model of beginning reading instruction,
based on scientifically based reading research, for use by eligible school districts and
against which programs and professional development products can be evaluated.
Support for developing the comprehensive model will be provided through the Center for
Academic and Reading Skills, the Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts, and the
Texas Family Literacy Center. The centers will also provide materials for professional
development and support State staff in assisting school districts with the implementation
process. School districts receiving funds will be required to carry out the following
activities: conduct professional development for teachers and instructional staff on the
teaching of reading according to scientifically based reading research; select one or more
programs of reading instruction using scientifically based reading research; provide family
literacy programs; and implement programs to assist kindergartners not ready for the
transition to first grade.
E-11
READING EXCELLENCE
Reading and literacy grants
Under the Administration's Title I reauthorization proposal, Reading and Literacy Grants
evaluation would be funded from a set-aside of up to 0.3 percent from the combined
appropriations for all Title I programs. Up to $3.9 million from that set-aside (including
$858,000 in Reading and Literacy Grants funds, or 0.3 percent of the total Reading and Literacy
Grants request) would be used to support fiscal year 2001 evaluation activities for this program.
The Department plans to continue an ambitious evaluation agenda for this program in fiscal
year 2001. We anticipate starting several evaluation projects with fiscal year 1999 funds that
would continue through 2001. These include: a Federal, State, and local outcomes and
implementation study of the program; causal studies of effective practice in professional
development, tutoring, and instruction for English language learners; and support and technical
assistance for State evaluations.
SELECTED PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This section presents selected program performance information, including goals; indicators;
targets; and, where possible, an assessment of the progress made toward achieving program
results. Achievement of targets is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in
previous years and those requested in FY 2001 and future years, and the resources and efforts
invested by those served by this program.
Other performance data for this program are included in the Department's Annual Performance
Plan and Annual Program Performance Report.
Performance Goal: To improve reading for children in high poverty schools and schools
that need improvement by supporting research-based reading instruction and tutoring.
Objective: Significantly improve students' achievement in participating schools and
classrooms.
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
By 2002, participating students will
increase their reading scores significantly
compared to comparable non-
participants. Baseline to be established
in 2001.
Objective: Build the capacity of States and local districts to design and implement
improvement strategies for reading that result in effective changes in classrooms.
E-12
READING EXCELLENCE
Reading and literacy grants
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
By April 2001, at least 16 States will have revised their
State in-service training and guidelines for reading
16
24
certification to reflect scientifically based reading
States
States
research.
Data for both indicators will come from the first national evaluation of the program.
PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Number of new awards
17
12
27
Range of awards
$2,011-
$500-
$500-
$36,000
$60,000
$25,000
Average State grant
$14,182
$20,092
$10,157
Number of schools
1,600
1,600
1,800
Evaluation
$3,900
$3,900
$3,900
Information dissemination
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
(National Institute for Literacy)
Even Start Statewide Family Literacy grants
$10,000
$10,000
0 ¹
Program improvement and technical assistance
0
0
$2,860
Peer review of new award applications
$87
$200
$200
1
Under the Administration's reauthorization bill, these grants could be funded under the Even Start
program.
E-13
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
INDIAN EDUCATION
Divider Title:
Department of Education
INDIAN EDUCATION
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request
CONTENTS
Page
Appropriation language
F-1
Amounts Available for Obligation
F-2
Obligations by Object Classification
F-2
Summary of Changes
F-3
Authorizing Legislation
F-4
Appropriations History
F-5
Summary of Request
F-6
Activities:
Grants to local educational agencies
F-9
Special programs for Indian children
F-15
National activities
F-20
State table
F-22
INDIAN EDUCATION
[For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not otherwise provided, title IX, part A
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, $77,000,000.]
(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2000, as enacted by section 1000(a)(4) of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113).)
Note -- No FY 2001 appropriation language is provided because the requested resources are proposed for
later transmittal upon enactment of proposed legislation to revise and reauthorize programs currently authorized
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
F-1
INDIAN EDUCATION
Amounts Available for Obligation
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Discretionary authority:
Annual appropriation
$66,000
$77,000
$115,500
Unobligated balance expiring
-5
0
0
Total, direct obligations
65,995
77,000
115,500
Obligations by Object Classification
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Grants, subsidies, and contributions
$65,995
$77,000
$115,500
F-2
INDIAN EDUCATION
Summary of Changes
($000s)
2000
$77,000
2001
115,500
Net change
+38,500
2000 base
Change from base
Increases:
Program:
Increase in Grants to LEAs to improve
educational opportunities for Indian children.
$62,000
+$30,765
Increase in special programs for Indian
children for a new initiative to train Indian
administrators to work in areas with high
concentrations of Indian children.
13,265
+6,735
Increase in national activities to obtain new
data on the educational status and needs of
Indian children.
1,735
+1,000
Subtotal, increases
+38,500
Net change
+38,500
F-3
INDIAN EDUCATION
Authorizing Legislation
($000s)
2000
2000
2001
2000
Activity
Authorized
Estimate
Authorized
Request
Grants to local educational
agencies (ESEA IX-A-1)
Indefinite 1
$62,000
To be determined²
$92,765
Special Programs for Indian
children (ESEA IX-A-2-9121 & 9122)
Indefinite 1
13,265
To be determined²
20,000
National activities (ESEA IX-A-4)
Indefinite 1
1,735
To be determined²
2,735
Unfunded authorizations:
Special programs for Indian
F-4
adults (ESEA IX-A-3)
Indefinite 1
0 To be determined 3
0
Indian fellowships program (ESEA IX-A-2-9123)
Indefinite 1
0
To be determined 3
0
Gifted and talented program (ESEA IX-A-2-9124)
Indefinite 1
0
To be determined³
0
Grants to tribes for education administrative
planning and development (ESEA IX-A-2-9125)
$3,000 1
0
$3,000³
0
Total definite authorization
3,000
3,000
Total appropriation
77,000
115,500
¹The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2000.
²The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
³The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; no new authorizing legislation is being proposed.
INDIAN EDUCATION
Appropriations History
($000s)
Budget
Estimate
House
Senate
to Congress
Allowance
Allowance
Appropriation
1992
$77,400
$77,547
$77,400
$76,570
1993
81,205
81,274
81,205
80,583
1994
84,006
83,500
83,405
83,500
1995
86,000
83,500
83,500
83,341
1995 Rescission
0
-2,000
-2,000
-2,300¹
1996
84,785
52,500
54,660
52,497
1997
81,500
52,497
52,500
60,993
1998
62,600
62,600
62,600
62,600
1999
66,000
66,000
66,000
66,000
2000
77,000
77,000
77,000
77,000
2001
115,500
1 Includes a $2,000,000 rescission under P.L. 104-19 and a $300,000 rescission that reflects this account's
share of a $1.5 million rescission in FY 1995 Departmental administrative and travel funds.
F-5
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
(in thousands of dollars)
D
2001
President's Request Compared
\
1999
2000
President's
to FY 2000 Appropriation
Office, Account. Program and Activity
M
Appropriation
Appropriation
Request
Amount
Percent
Indian Education
1. Grants to local educational agencies (ESEA IX-A-1)
D
62,000
62,000
92,765
30,765
49.6%
2. Special programs for Indian children (ESEA IX-A-2,
sections 9121 and 9122)
D
3,265
13,265
20,000
6,735
50.8%
3. National activities (ESEA IX-A-4)
D
735
1,735
2,735
1,000
57.6%
Total
66,000
77,000
115,500
38,500
50.0%
Outlays
56,845
80,867
79,315
(1,552)
-1.9%
F-6
INDIAN EDUCATION
Summary of Request
In 1994, Congress amended the Indian Education authorization to focus programs on improving
the capacity of schools to provide challenging curriculum to Indian students. The statute now
supports a comprehensive approach to educational reform and helps ensure that Indians
benefit from national education reforms and receive every opportunity to achieve to high
standards. The Act authorizes programs of direct assistance for the education of Indian
children and adults; the training of Indian individuals as educators and in other professions
serving Indian people; and research, evaluation, and data collection. The programs promote
the efforts of local educational agencies, State educational agencies, and Indian tribes and
organizations to meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of these
students. The Administration's reauthorization proposal would continue this approach.
The Administration's reauthorization proposal builds on the significant changes made in the
1994 reauthorization. While the proposal would maintain the commitment to the formula grant
program to improve the quality of instruction that American Indian students receive, some minor
changes are proposed. These changes include a clarification to eliminate confusion regarding
the role of the parent committee and a modification of the BIA application process to reduce
redundancy in student identifications. Consistent with general Administration policy, several un-
funded authorizations would be repealed.
The Administration is requesting $115.5 million for Indian Education programs for 2001, an
increase of $38.5 million over the 2000 level. With this increase, the Administration would
significantly increase formula grant resources to enable school districts to provide viable Indian
Education programs; expand the special programs for Indian children; and provide the
resources to address the research objectives of President Clinton's Executive Order on
American Indian and Alaska Native education. This includes:
$92.8 million (+$30.8 million) for Grants to Local Educational Agencies in order to
address the particular needs of Indian children and meet the Administration's
commitment to building capacity at the local level for Indian students.
$20 million (+$6.7 million) for Special programs for Indian children to fund new awards
in professional development and early childhood demonstration grants, as well as to
continue the American Indian Teacher Corps and create the American Indian
Administrator Corps.
$2.7 million (+$1 million) for National Activities to carry out research activities
developed as part of a comprehensive research agenda to provide information on the
status of education for the Indian population.
This request for Indian Education is part of a broad-based Administration initiative to improve
services to Indians as highlighted by the Executive Order on American Indian and Alaska
Native education. Other components of this initiative include:
$50 million through the School Renovation initiative for public schools with high
concentrations of American Indian students, as well as $5 million for Impact Aid
F-7
INDIAN EDUCATION
Summary of Request -- continued
construction, which will help LEAs build and renovate schools for their students living
on Indian lands; and
$300 million for BIA school construction, which will reduce the significant shortage of
appropriate classroom space and provide numerous health and safety improvements
and repair projects for BIA schools.
American Indians have made progress in recent decades but continue to be disproportionately
affected by poverty and low educational attainment and have fewer educational opportunities
than other students. For example, recent data show that:
Among American Indians 25 and older the high school completion rate in 1990 was 66
percent, 9 percent had attained a bachelor's degree, and 3 percent held graduate or
professional degrees. Among the total population 25 years and older, 77 percent (11
percent higher than Indians) had completed high school, 20 percent (11 percent higher
than Indians) had attained a bachelor's degree, and 7 percent (4 percent higher than
Indians) held graduate or professional degrees.
In 1990, 36.2 percent of American Indian children ages 5-17 were living below the
poverty level, compared with 17 percent of all other children.
American Indian students, on average, score lower on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress than other students. For example, 48 percent of American
Indian 4th graders and 63 percent of 8th graders scored "at or above basic" on the 1994
reading assessment, compared to 60 percent for all 4th grade students and 70 percent
for 8th grade students. 52 percent of American Indian 4th graders and 50 percent of
Indian 8th graders scored "at or above basic" on the 1996 mathematics assessment,
compared to 64 percent for all 4th grade students and 62 percent for all 8th grade
students.
The combined score on the SAT in 1994-95 for American Indians was 850, or 60
points lower than the combined score of 910 reported for all students.
American Indians have made significant progress on SAT scores, moving from 388 in
Verbai and 420 in Math in 1976 to 403 in Verbal and 447 in Math in 1995. In
comparison, white students have stayed relatively stable, or declined, moving from 451
Verbal and 493 Math in 1976 to 448 Verbal and 498 Math in 1995.
In schools with 25% or more American Indian or Alaska Native enrollment, only 15% of
teachers and 13% of principals were themselves American Indian or Alaska Native.
These facts and trends undergird the importance of the Department's request for increased
funding for Indian Education.
F-8
INDIAN EDUCATION
Grants to local educational agencies
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title IX, Part A, Subpart 1)
FY 2001 Authorization ($000s): To be determined¹
Budget Authority ($000s):
2000
2001
Change
$62,000
$92,765
+$30,765
1
The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Title IX, Part A, Subpart I of ESEA authorizes a formula program that provides assistance to
schools for elementary and secondary school programs serving Indian students, including
preschool children. Local educational agencies (LEAs), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)-operated
schools, and other BIA-supported schools are eligible for grants to address the unique
educational and culturally related academic needs of Indian students so that those students can
achieve to the same challenging State performance standards expected of all students. Indian
tribes whose members are 50 percent or more of the children in the schools of an LEA are
authorized to receive formula grants, in place of the LEA, in situations where the LEA does not
apply for funding.
Each applicant must develop a comprehensive plan for meeting the needs of Indian children.
This plan must be consistent with any State and local standards-based improvement plans and
be developed and approved by a local committee comprised primarily of parents of Indian
children. The plan must include student performance goals; a description of professional
development activities that the applicant will carry out; and an explanation of how the LEA will
assess students' progress toward meeting its goals and will provide the results of this
assessment to the parent committee and community.
The grant amount to an LEA is based on a formula that provides grants only to LEAs or BIA
schools in which the number of Indian children is at least 10 or constitutes at least 25 percent of
total enrollment. (However, LEAs in California, Alaska, and Oklahoma, and those located on or
near reservations, are exempted from this requirement.) The grant amount is determined by
multiplying the number of Indian children in an LEA by the average per-pupil expenditure in the
LEA's State or 80 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure in the U.S., whichever is
greater. Grants are then ratably reduced to fit within the available appropriation. However, the
authorizing legislation requires that each participating LEA receive at least $3,000.
LEAs and tribes must submit their applications to their State educational agency (SEA) for
comment. If the SEA chooses to provide comments, it must comment on all applications
submitted by entities within the State. State review of applications encourages increased State
F-9
INDIAN EDUCATION
Grants to local educational agencies
responsibility for the education of Indian students, ensuring that States consider the needs of
Indian children as they develop standards-based reform plans under other ESEA programs.
The Department's proposal for reauthorization would maintain the commitment to the significant
changes made in the 1994 reauthorization but includes some minor statutory changes. The bill
would:
Exempt Indian tribes applying in place of an LEA, as well as BIA schools, from
requirements relating to the inclusion of a parent committee, maintenance of effort, and
submitting applications for SEA review.
Exempt BIA schools from documenting student eligibility to participate in the program.
Add new examples of allowable activities, including: incorporating Indian-specific
content and culturally responsive teaching strategies into curriculum; promoting
coordination between tribal, Federal, and State public schools; and gifted and talented
education.
Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:
($000s)
1996
$50,000
1997
58,050
1998
59,750
1999
62,000
2000
62,000
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
For 2001, the Department is requesting $92.8 million for the LEA formula grant program, an
increase of $30.8 million over the 2000 appropriation. Of the total, $84.8 million would be for
formula grants to LEAs, and the remaining $8 million would be allocated to the Secretary of the
Interior to distribute to schools supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
The formula grant program is the Department's principal vehicle for addressing the particular
needs of Indian children, 90 percent of whom attend public schools. Grants supplement the
regular school program, helping Indian children sharpen their academic skills, bolster their self-
confidence, and participate in enrichment programs that would otherwise be unavailable.
These local projects also address the National Education Goals related to school readiness,
high school completion, and student achievement. The requested increase would further the
Administration's overall goal of ensuring that Indian children achieve to the same standards
expected of all children and follow through on the President's particular commitment to Indian
programs as expressed through the recent Executive Order on American Indian and Alaska
Native education.
F-10
INDIAN EDUCATION
Grants to local educational agencies
The request also reflects the steady increase of the Indian population. The number of students
that LEAs have identified as eligible for program services has grown from approximately
410,000 students in 1994 to approximately 463,000 students in 2000. Assuming that the
number of eligible students remains at the 2000 level, the 2001 request would provide an
estimated per-pupil payment under the formula grant program of $200, an increase of $66 per
student from 2000.
The request will also help LEAs recover from the losses the program has taken over the last
two decades. Since 1980, the highest level of funding for this program in constant dollars, the
program has experienced several cuts in funding, and increases have failed to match the rate of
inflation in most years. LEAs have had to modify their programs to adjust to this loss of
purchasing power, and the program has not been able to have as significant an impact on
Indian education as intended under the statute.
In 1999, the Department made grants to 1,263 LEAs to enable them to address the unique
educational and culturally related academic needs of Indian students so that those students can
achieve to the same challenging State performance standards expected of all students. Among
the LEAs that received grants are:
Lame Deer Public School - located on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in
southeast Montana, Lame Deer serves 530 Indian students. Program funds support a
student assistance counseling center to ensure that students culturally related needs,
academic and otherwise, are addressed in a culturally appropriate manner. The center
provides programs designed to support drug and alcohol abuse recovery and
prevention; mentoring with elders to support students, share community values, and
provide encouragement to students to succeed in, and out of, school; and support for
pregnant students and students with children. As part of a comprehensive effort to
address the needs of Indian students, this program has helped reduce the number of
unexcused absences from 85 to 11, reduced incidents of disruptive behavior from 184
to 2, and provided 52 students with in-depth counseling services and 273 students with
other specialized counseling services. With increased funds, Lame Deer would be
able to continue these efforts, broaden its program, provide additional counseling
services, and further address the overall needs of Indian students.
Minneapolis Public Schools - the goal of the project in Minneapolis is to provide
services targeted toward eliminating the achievement gap between American Indians
and other students. Indian Education services are coordinated with other State and
Federal programs to provide a comprehensive effort to meet the culturally related
academic needs of Indian students. The LEA operates programs to increase the
involvement of Indian elders in language, culture, history, and support programs;
provide service learning programs for students to incorporate Indian culture and values
in urban settings; and, along with the State of Minnesota, is implementing an American
Indian outcome-based curriculum that complements the district curriculum content
standards with Indian topics. This program has helped increase the number of
students passing the district math and reading tests (for an overall increase of 5
F-11
INDIAN EDUCATION
Grants to local educational agencies
percent from 1996-97 to 1997-98), and reduce the drop-out rate by almost 30 percent.
With increased funds, Minneapolis would be able to continue this trend of improving
student achievement and decreasing drop-out rates, and would expand its programs to
reach more students and incorporate the language, culture, and values of Indians into
urban settings.
Public Schools of Robeson County, North Carolina - - the recipient of the largest
formula grant, Robeson County has five major program service delivery goals and
outcome indicators: (1) reduce the factors that inhibit learning; (2) improve academic
performance in reading and mathematics; (3) increase Indian student participation
rates in programs associated with challenging academic courses; (4) integrate local
Native American Indian history and culture into core academic offerings; and (5)
increase parental involvement and participation in the core program activities.
Robeson County provides a variety of services to meet these goals. Reading and
mathematics assistance programs and tutoring services have led to an average gain
on the "End of Grade Reading" developmental scale of 6.3 points and an average
increase of 11.2 on the End of Grade Math development scale. Counseling and
referral services have helped attain a daily attendance rate of 91.1 percent for Indian
students. The drop-out prevention and re-enrollment program has re-enrolled 63
students and led to their successful completion of program requirements. The Summer
Day Camp, in 1998, targeted and served 210 4th, 5th, and 6th grade students achieving
at or below grade level in reading, writing, and math. The parental involvement and
training program provided services to 579 parents who are now directly involved with
the Title IX program and school activities. With increased funds, Robeson County
would be able to expand services and reach more students and parents with
specialized tutoring and mentoring, academic assistance and counseling, and services
that address the students' unique cultural and academic needs.
SELECTED PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This section presents information on performance goals and objectives and selected
performance indicators and strategies for measuring the progress made toward achieving
program results. Desired targets are identified for each performance indicator where a baseline
has been determined. Achievement of targets is based on the cumulative effect of the
resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2001 and future years, and the
resources and efforts invested by those served by this and other programs supporting the
performance goals and objectives.
Other performance indicators and strategies for this program are included in the Department's
Annual Program Performance Plan.
Performance goal: To assist American Indian and Alaska Native children in achieving to
the same challenging standards expected of all students by supporting access to
programs that meet their unique educational and culturally related academic needs.
F-12
INDIAN EDUCATION
Grants to local educational agencies
Objective: American Indian and Alaska Native students served by school districts
receiving Indian Education grants will progress at rates similar to those for all students
in achievement to standards, promotion, and graduation.
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
Increasing percentages of Indian students will meet
or exceed the performance standards that are
established by the State, district, or tribe (as
appropriate), or on national assessments. FY 1994
baseline: 48 percent of Indian students in grade 4
and 63 percent of Indian students in grade 8 were at
4th: 60%
or above the basic level in reading proficiency.
Comparable figures for the general population were
8th: 70%
60 percent in grade 4 and 70 percent in grade 8.
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
FY 1996 baseline: 52 percent of Indian students in grade
4 scored at or above the basic level in mathematics and
50 percent of Indian students in grade 8 scored at or
above the basic level in mathematics. Comparable figures
4th: 64%
for the general population were 64 percent in grade 4 and
62 percent in grade 8.
8th: 62%
American Indian and Alaska Native children suffer significant disadvantages in achieving
academically. This indicator measures the academic progress of Indian children, which can be
attributed in part to the Indian Education program. Data to support this indicator are collected
through the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The 1998 NAEP showed a
steady level in 4th grade and slight progress in grade 8 for Indian students in math: 4th grade
students stayed at 52 percent at or above basic and 8th grade students went from 50 percent to
51 percent at or above basic. However, reading scores for both 4th and 8th grade students
slipped slightly from 1994 to 1998: 4th grade students went from 48 percent to 47 percent at or
above basic and 8th grade students went from 63 percent to 61 percent at or above basic. As
States continue to put standards and assessments in place it is likely that Indians will improve
in reading scores and continue to improve in math scores. The 2000 NAEP will provide
updated information on math scores. The 2002 NAEP will provide updated information on
reading scores.
F-13
INDIAN EDUCATION
Grants to local educational agencies
PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
LEA formula grant funds
$62,000
$62,000
$92,765
Number of awards
LEAs
1,118
1,118
1,118
BIA-grant/contract schools
79
79
79
BIA-operated schools
66
66
66
Total
1,263
1,263
1,263
Distribution of funds
LEAs
$56,820
$56,820
$85,015
BIA-grant/contract schools
3,010
3,010
4,504
BIA-operated schools
2,170
2,170
3,246
Total
62,000
62,000
92,765
Number of eligible students
LEAs
420,653
420,653
420,653
BIA-grant/contract schools
23,985
23,985
23,985
BIA-operated schools
18,189
18,189
18,189
Total
462,827
462,827
462,827
Range of awards (whole dollars)
Highest
$1,338,179
$1,340,000
$1,500,000
Lowest
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
Average payment per eligible student (whole dollars)
$134
$134
$200
F-14
INDIAN EDUCATION
Special programs for Indian children
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title IX, Part A, Subpart 2, Sections 9121 and
9122)
FY 2001 Authorization ($000s): To be determined¹
Budget Authority ($000s):
2000
2001
Change
$13,265
$20,000
+$6,735
1
The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Title IX, Subpart 2 of ESEA authorizes a variety of discretionary programs designed to improve
the quality of education for Indian students. These programs make competitive awards, and
applications are evaluated based on criteria specified in regulations. The two activities that
currently are funded and that would be continued under the Administration's reauthorization
proposal are:
Improvement of Educational Opportunities for Indian Children (Section 9121)
(Demonstration Grants). Under this program, the Department makes discretionary grant
awards to State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), Indian
tribes and organizations, and institutions of higher education to improve Indian student
achievement through demonstration grants in such areas as early childhood education,
drop-out prevention, and school-to-work and secondary school-higher education
transition programs.
Professional Development (Section 9122). Under this program, the Department makes
discretionary grant awards to (1) institutions of higher education, or (2) SEAs, LEAs,
Indian tribes and organizations, and BIA-funded schools, in consortiums with institutions
of higher education, to increase the number of qualified Indian individuals in professions
serving Indian people. The grants enable Indians to receive training as engineers,
doctors, educators, and other professionals, before returning to serve in their native
communities. Individuals receiving training under this program are required to secure
employment in a field related to their education and benefiting Indians, or pay back the
amount of the assistance.
Title IX, Subpart 2 of ESEA also authorizes Fellowships for Indian Students, to provide grants to
graduate or undergraduate Indian students; Gifted and Talented Education, to establish centers
F-15
INDIAN EDUCATION
Special programs for Indian children
for gifted and talented Indian students at tribally controlled community colleges; and Grants to
Tribes for Education Administration Planning and Development, to make grants to tribes and
tribal organizations for the development of tribal departments of education. Congress has not
funded the Fellowships program since fiscal year 1995. The other two authorities have never
been funded.
The Administration's reauthorization proposal would make minor changes in the Demonstration
Grants to require that applicants demonstrate that their proposed program is research based.
In addition, the proposal would modify the Professional Development program to exempt
participants who receive inservice training from the service requirement, and to permit grants
for inservice programs to consortia of tribal colleges and institutions of higher education that
award a degree in education.
The Administration's proposal would repeal the authorizations for the three activities that
replicate other authorities and have not received recent funding: Fellowships for Indian
Students, Gifted and Talented Education, and Grants to Tribes for Education Administration
Planning and Development.
Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:
($000s)
1996
0
1997
0
1998
0
1999
$3,265
2000
13,265
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
For 2001, the Department requests $20 million for Special Programs for Indian Children, a
$6.7 million increase over the 2000 level. Continued Federal support for these programs is
justified by the increasing Indian student population and the continued special educational
needs of Indians. For example:
1990 census data show that American Indian and Alaska Native children are significantly
affected by poverty, with 36.2 percent of Indian children below the poverty line.
In 1993-94, in high schools where the concentration of Indian students was greater than
25 percent, only 44.7 percent of the Indian seniors applied to college. (Characteristics of
American Indian and Alaska Native Education, NCES, 1997.)
From fiscal year 2001 funds, the Department would use $5 million to fund new awards under
the Demonstration Grants and Professional Development program. The Department would use
$10 million to continue the American Indian Teacher Corps (which is carried out under the
F-16
INDIAN EDUCATION
Special programs for Indian children
Professional Development authority). With the remaining $5 million, the Department would
initiate the American Indian Administrator Corps.
Under the Demonstration Grants authority, in fiscal year 1999 the Department made
eight 2-year grants to promote school readiness, enhance native language development,
and increase the potential for learning among young American Indian and Alaska Native
students. Fiscal year 2001 funds will initiate 12 additional projects.
Under the Professional Development authority, in fiscal year 1999 the Department
initiated nine 2-year grants to institutions of higher education (IHE), and to State or local
educational agencies or tribes in consortium with IHEs to provide support and training for
Indian students who are pursuing degrees in education or school administration and
related fields. Through this authority, the Department hopes to encourage more Indian
students to pursue careers in education, particularly in schools with large populations of
Indian students. Fiscal year 2001 funds would be used to initiate approximately 14 new
projects.
The American Indian Teacher Corps initiative, which will begin in fiscal year 2000,
combines several program elements in a manner that will effectively train Indian college
students to work in schools with concentrations of Indian children and youth. First of all,
it will support the efforts of tribal colleges and postsecondary institutions that offer
teacher training to develop and operate programs; a competitive priority will be provided
to partnerships of tribal colleges and postsecondary institutions that facilitate recruitment
and ensure that programs reflect the needs of Indian students. Second, it will recruit
heavily among Indian paraprofessionals who are already working in Indian communities,
can connect with the students in Indian schools, and are more likely than other students
to remain in those schools. (Heavily Indian schools are typically plagued by high teacher
turn-over, as many teachers who enter those schools do not relate well to the students or
experience a sense of isolation in the community.) Third, the program will be
comprehensive: the appropriation will support tuition and living expenses for the
students, as well as program development and operational costs for the institutions.
Finally, the initiative will provide both pre-service and in-service instruction; grantees will
receive funding to provide training to teachers who are already working in Indian schools,
particularly in such areas as effective methods for teaching reading and mathematics to
the linguistically diverse Indian population.
The 2001 budget would continue the training of an initial cohort of 500 prospective
teachers, as well as professional development for teachers currently in the field.
Completions of the education of the 500 participants would fulfill half of the
Administration's objective of training and placing 1,000 Indian educators through this
initiative.
The American Indian Administrator Corps initiative, modeled after the American Indian
Teacher Corps (and also proposed to be carried out under the Professional Development
authority), would recruit, train, and provide inservice professional development to
F-17
INDIAN EDUCATION
Special programs for Indian children
American Indians to become effective school administrators in schools with high
concentrations of American Indian students. Like the Teacher Corps, it would operate
programs at tribal colleges and to postsecondary institutions that offer education
administration programs; there would be a competitive priority to bring together tribal
colleges and postsecondary institutions in partnership to facilitate recruitment and ensure
that programs reflect the needs of American Indian professionals. Second, it would
recruit heavily among Indian teachers and professionals who are already working in
Indian schools, and are more likely than other individuals to remain in those schools.
Finally, the grantees would receive funding to provide training to teachers and
administrators who are already working in Indian schools to enhance their knowledge in
education reform efforts.
The 2001 budget request would fund approximately 14 grantees and an initial cohort of
approximately 200 American Indian teachers and professionals.
SELECTED PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This section presents information on performance goals and objectives and selected
performance indicators and strategies for measuring the progress made toward achieving
program results. Desired targets are identified for each performance indicator where a baseline
has been determined. Achievement of targets is based on the cumulative effect of the
resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2001 and future years, and the
resources and efforts invested by those served by this and other programs supporting the goals
and objectives
Other performance indicators and strategies for this program are included in the Department's
Annual Program Performance Plan.
Performance goal: To assist American Indian and Alaska Native children achieve to the
same challenging standards expected of all students by supporting access to programs
that meet their special educational and culturally related academic needs.
Objective: Discretionary programs will focus on improving educational opportunities
and services for Indian students.
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
Increasing percentages of teachers and administrators in
schools with a high population of American Indian and
Alaska Native students will themselves be American Indian
and Alaska Native. FY 1993-1994 baseline: 15% of
teachers in schools with 25 percent or more Indian
enrollment were American Indian and Alaska Native. 13
percent of principals in schools with 25 percent or more
Indian enrollment were American Indian and Alaska Native.
F-18
INDIAN EDUCATION
Special programs for Indian children
This indicator measures the success of professional development grantees (and of other
efforts) in encouraging Indian students to pursue opportunities in teaching and educational
administration. The Department has set a goal for fiscal year 2005 that 20 percent of teachers
and 18 percent of principals will themselves be American Indian or Alaska Native in schools
with 25 percent or more of American Indian and Alaska Native students. The 1993-1994
Schools and Staffing Survey provided the baseline data, the 2000-2001 SASS will provide the
updated interim data, and the 2004 SASS will provide data on meeting the established goal.
PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Demonstration Grants
$1,272
$1,260
$2,400
Number of new awards
8
0
12
Number of continuation awards
0
8
0
Average award
$159
$159
$200
Professional Development
$1,970
$1,970
$2,600
Number of new awards
9
0
14
Number of continuation awards
0
9
0
Average award
$219
$219
$186
Number of students served
290
290
290
American Indian Teacher Corps
0
$10,000
$10,000
Number of students served
0
500
500
Range of awards
0
$5-10
$5-10
Number of institutional awards
0
20
20
Average award
0
$250
$250
American Indian Administrator Initiative
0
0
$5,000
Number of individuals served
0
0
200
Range of awards
0
0
$5-10
Number of institutional awards
0
0
14
Average award
0
0
$357
F-19
INDIAN EDUCATION
National activities
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title IX, Part A, Subpart 4)
FY 2001 Authorization ($000s): To be determined¹
Budget Authority ($000s):
2000
2001
Change
$1,735
$2,735
+$1,000
1
The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program is a national discretionary authority for research, evaluation, and data collection to
provide information on the status of education for the Indian population and on the effectiveness
of Indian Education programs. The Department proposed the creation of this authority in the
1994 reauthorization after finding that, without an evaluation and data analysis program
specifically for Indian education, we could not answer the questions raised by congressional
committees, the Indian community, and others about the educational status and needs of the
Indian population.
Under this authority (and prior to its creation, through special appropriations language), the
Department has used funds to augment the 1990-1991 and 1993-1994 Schools and Staffing
Survey (SASS) in order to over-sample the Indian population and thereby obtain statistically
representative data. The appropriation supported the development of the survey instrument,
over-sampling of the Indian population, and production and publication of a comprehensive
report on the status of Indian education, Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native
Education. Through this action, the Department has been able to gather and disseminate data
on the enrollment of Indian students, graduation rates, English-speaking ability of Indian
students, characteristics of teachers and principals serving Indian students, and other areas of
concern and interest. The 1999 appropriation financed the augmentation of the 2000-2001
SASS in order to update the information collected in the previous survey.
The Department used 1993 and 1994 funds to contract with the Urban Institute for a special
analysis of 1990 Census data on Indians in such areas as: household income, poverty status,
at-risk preschool children, current grade enrollment, educational attainment, and ability to speak
English. This analysis compares data for Indians with comparable data for other ethnic groups
in each of these areas.
In 1995, the Department contracted for a study of the plans that local educational agencies
prepare under the Indian Education Grants to LEAs program to determine whether those plans
were meeting the requirements of the reauthorized statute. In 1998, the Department completed
F-20
INDIAN EDUCATION
National activities
a comprehensive compilation of data on American Indian and Alaska Native participation in
postsecondary education.
To meet the requirements of the recent Executive Order on Indian Education, fiscal year 2001
funds will be used to carry out the first stages of a comprehensive research agenda on the
educational status of American Indian students. One component of that agenda will be a
special oversample of the Indian population for the National Center for Education Statistics
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey. This survey will provide additional baseline information on
American Indian students.
Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:
($000s)
1996
0
1997
0
1998
0
1999
$735
2000
1,735
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
For 2001, the Department requests $2.7 million for national activities, an increase of $1 million
over the 2000 level. The Department would use these funds to support the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Survey initiated in 2000 by the National Center for Education Statistics. Funds
would also support other projects identified for support by the comprehensive research agenda
called for in the Executive Order on American Indian and Alaska Native Education. The
Department expects to complete development of a final agenda by December 2000.
PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Supplement to the SASS
$735
0
0
Research Agenda task order
0
$300
0
Executive Order research activities
0
885
$1,735
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey
0
500
1,000
F-21
INDIAN EDUCATION
Grants to local educational agencies
State or Outlying Area
1999
2000
2001
Alabama
$1,157,471
$1,157,471
$1,763,038
Alaska
6,774,683
6,774,683
10,397,957
Arizona
7,421,934
7,421,934
11,128,395
Arkansas
128,595
128,595
186,470
California
4,134,309
4,134,309
6,141,087
Colorado
406,590
406,590
603,595
Connecticut
24,288
24,288
36,570
Delaware
0
0
0
Florida
62,771
62,771
83,151
Georgia
0
0
0
Hawaii
0
0
0
Idaho
267,741
267,741
419,512
Illinois
59,133
59,133
122,868
Indiana
6,817
6,817
11,468
lowa
122,590
122,590
180,923
Kansas
234,418
234,418
511,882
Kentucky
0
0
0
Louisiana
506,822
506,822
738,450
Maine
86,441
86,441
160,679
Maryland
140,837
140,837
240,640
Massachusetts
104,536
104,536
117,794
Michigan
2,644,461
2,644,461
4,098,386
Minnesota
2,354,986
2,354,986
3,486,801
Mississippi
243,965
243,965
355,906
Missouri
47,922
47,922
65,696
Montana
2,069,214
2,069,214
3,025,557
Nebraska
433,915
433,915
650,248
Nevada
489,724
489,724
710,622
New Hampshire
0
0
0
New Jersey
103,613
103,613
169,130
New Mexico
5,274,603
5,274,603
8,047,020
New York
1,107,163
1,107,163
1,731,053
North Carolina
2,124,375
2,124,375
3,349,073
North Dakota
1,081,543
1,081,543
1,603,931
Ohio
7,362
7,362
11,404
Oklahoma
12,391,495
12,391,495
17,814,223
Oregon
1,297,704
1,297,704
1,967,754
Pennsylvania
0
0
0
Rhode Island
0
0
0
South Carolina
34,534
34,534
50,740
South Dakota
2,326,955
2,326,955
3,240,582
Tennessee
0
0
0
Texas
180,760
180,760
275,603
Utah
776,808
776,808
1,153,250
Vermont
90,501
90,501
141,116
Virginia
14,635
14,635
22,375
Washington
3,255,369
3,255,369
4,766,641
West Virginia
0
0
0
Wisconsin
1,657,451
1,657,451
2,647,184
Wyoming
350,966
350,966
536,225
District of Columbia
0
0
0
Puerto Rico
0
0
0
Total
62,000,000
62,000,000
92,765,000
F-22
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
SCHOOL RENOVATION
Divider Title:
Department of Education
SCHOOL RENOVATION
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request
CONTENTS
Page
Appropriations language
G-1
Analysis of language provisions and changes
G-2
Amounts available for obligation
G-3
Obligations by object classification
G-4
Summary of changes
G-5
Authorizing legislation
G-6
Activity
G-7
SCHOOL RENOVATION
For grants and loans to carry out school renovation under Title XII of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $1,300,000,000, which shall become available on
July 1, 2001 and shall remain available until expended,¹ of which: (1) $50,000,000 shall
be for grants to local educational agencies (as defined in section 8013(9) of such Act) in
which the number of children determined under section 8003(a)(1)(C) of such Act
constituted at least 50 percent of the number of children who were in average daily
attendance in the schools of such agency during the preceding school year;2 (2)
$125,000,000 shall be for grants to local educational agencies (other than those under
(1)); and (3) $1,125,000,000 shall be for the costs of direct loans to local educational
agencies; Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be
as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; Provided further,
That these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of
direct loans not to exceed $7,000,000,000; Provided further, That notwithstanding any
provision of Titles XII and XIV, the Secretary shall make these grants and loans subject
to such terms and conditions as the Secretary shall establish.
Note--Each language provision that is followed by a footnote reference is explained in the Analysis of
Language Provisions and Changes document which follows the appropriations language.
G-1
SCHOOL RENOVATION
Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes
Language Provision
Explanation
SCHOOL RENOVATION
This language forward funds the program
1 $1,300,000,000, which shall become
because the Department may need more
available on July 1, 2001 and shall remain
than 1 year to establish the program and
available until expended
its application process. In addition, the
language extends the availability of funds
because renovation projects may require
more than 1 year to initiate and complete.
2
(1) $50,000,000 shall be for grants to
This language provides $50,000,000 in
local educational agencies (as defined in
grants to LEAs that qualify to receive
section 8013(9) of such Act) in which the
Impact Aid Construction funds (under the
number of children determined under
terms set forth in the Administration's
section 8003(a)(1)(C) of such Act
Elementary and Secondary Act
constituted at least 50 percent of the
reauthorization proposal) because at least
number of children who were in average
50 percent of their students in average
daily attendance in the schools of such
daily attendance reside on Indian lands.
agency during the preceding school
year;
G-2
SCHOOL RENOVATION
Amounts Available for Obligation
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Discretionary authority:
Annual appropriation
0
0
$1,300,000
Total obligations
1,300,000
G-3
SCHOOL RENOVATION
Obligations by Object Classification
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Grants, subsidies, and
contributions
0
0
$1,300,000
G-4
SCHOOL RENOVATION
Summary of Changes
($000s)
2000
0
2001
$1,300,000
Net change
+1,300,000
2000 base
Change from base
Increases:
Program:
Provide grants to Indian LEAs, grants
to other high-need LEAs, and school renovation
loans in order to improve the condition of school
facilities.
0
+$1,300,000
Subtotal, increases
+1,300,000
Net change
+1,300,000
G-5
SCHOOL RENOVATION
Authorizing Legislation
($000s)
2000
2000
2001
2001
Activity
Authorized
Estimate
Authorized
Request
School renovation (ESEA, XII)
Indefinite
0
To be determined 1
$1,300,000
¹The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
G-6
SCHOOL RENOVATION
School Renovation
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title XII)
FY 2001 Authorization ($000s): Indefinite 1
Budget authority ($000s):
2000
2001
Change
Grants to Indian local educational
agencies
0
$50,000
+$50,000
Grants to other high-need local
educational agencies
0
125,000
+125,000
School renovation loans
0
1,125,000
+1,125,000
Total
0
1,300,000
+1,300,000
The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The School Renovation program would provide $1.3 billion to help local educational
agencies (LEAs) renovate their schools. Of this total amount, $50 million would be
provided to approximately 118 LEAs that have 50 percent or more of their children in
average daily attendance residing on Indian lands. Of the remaining $1.25 billion, both
$125 million in grants and $1.125 billion in loan subsidies would be provided to LEAs.
This loan subsidy would leverage approximately $6.5 billion in 7-year no-interest loans.
Renovation funded through these grants and loans could include such projects as
repairs to roofs, climate control systems, or plumbing.
The assistance provided under this account supplements other construction assistance
in the Administration's 2001 request, including the authority for State and local
governments to issue $24.8 billion in tax-credit bonds in the Administration's tax policy
proposal; $300 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools (in the Department of
the Interior's budget request); and $5 million under the Impact Aid Construction authority.
The tax-credit bonds would provide tax credits to bond holders that, on average, would
equal the amount of interest payments on 15-year bonds. These bonds would typically
be used for major renovations and the construction of new schools, while the 7-year
loans would typically be used for less expensive renovation projects that LEAs could
repay in 7 years. The funds for BIA are important because BIA schools, which are in
poor condition, would not qualify for the Indian LEA grants provided under this account.
G-7
SCHOOL RENOVATION
School Renovation
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
The Administration requests $1.3 billion for school renovation. The General Accounting
Office's (GAO's) report, School Facilities: Condition of America's Schools, found that the
condition of many schools in the U.S. is poor. The report estimated that the cost of
bringing the Nation's schools into good overall condition was about $112 billion.
According to the study, about 14 million students attended one-third of the Nation's
schools that reported needing extensive repair or replacement of one or more buildings.
About 28 million students attended 60 percent of the Nation's schools that reported
having one or more building features, such as roofs, plumbing, and climate control
systems, needing to be extensively repaired, overhauled, or replaced. Three-quarters of
these schools had multiple features in need of repair. (The data in the GAO report are
based on a sample of 10,000 elementary and secondary schools.)
The report indicates that 50 percent of schools reported having at least one
unsatisfactory environmental condition, such as air quality or physical security. It also
indicated that 33 percent of schools reported multiple environmental problems, and one-
half of these schools had four to six such problems. In addition, even though three-
quarters of the schools indicated that they had spent funds during the three preceding
years to address such hazardous conditions as asbestos, lead in paint or water, and
radon, two-thirds reported plans to spend additional funds to help remediate these
hazardous conditions. According to GAO, approximately $5 billion was needed to
manage or correct these problems. An estimated 45 percent of the schools reported
plans to spend funds correcting problems related to asbestos alone. Another GAO
report, Toxic Substances: Information on Costs and Financial Aid to Schools to Control
Asbestos, reported that Federal assistance under the Asbestos School Hazard
Abatement Act of 1984 was insufficient to correct asbestos problems. While the
Environmental Protection Agency received 1,746 qualified applications totaling
$599 million from 1988 through 1991, it was only able to provide $157 million to 586
local educational agencies.
Many of the examples of problems in schools that were visited by GAO are disturbing:
In Montgomery County, Alabama, an elementary school ceiling collapsed due to
water damage and a junior high school had raw sewage backing up on its front lawn
due to defective plumbing.
In New York City, an overcrowded high school had inadequate ventilation, many
interior classrooms, and windows that did not open, which combined to make the
school unbearably hot during warm weather. During cold weather, the high school's
heating system was dependent on a fireman stoking a coal furnace by hand.
A Chicago high school's floors were buckling, and, in some parts of the school, could
not be walked upon. Its heating problems left some rooms too warm while others
had no heat, and its plumbing problems in a science lab prevented students from
conducting experiments.
Because of problems like these, the American Society of Civil Engineers considered the
Nation's school infrastructure to be the poorest among all the types of infrastructure,
G-8
SCHOOL RENOVATION
School Renovation
such as roads and drinking water, that it reviewed. In 1998 it gave its only failing grade
to America's schools. Part of the reason for the poor condition of the Nation's school
buildings is probably their age. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
reports in How Old Are America's Public Schools? that, in 1998, the average age for a
school building was 42 years.
Problems are Concentrated in High-Poverty and Predominantly Indian LEAs
The Nation's oldest schools have higher percentages of impoverished children,
according to NCES. Among schools with less than 20 percent poor children, 20 percent
were built before 1950, but among schools with 20 to 49 percent poor children,
29 percent were built before 1950; and among schools with 50 percent or more poor
children, 34 percent were built before 1950. In addition to high-poverty LEAs, other
LEAs lack wealth, make a high tax effort (relative to their resources) for education, and
lack the wherewithal to make urgent repairs to their school facilities.
School districts with large proportions of children residing on Indian lands face
particularly difficult problems. School districts with 50 percent or more of their students
residing on Indian lands in 1999 had an average child poverty rate of 45 percent in 1990,
the highest poverty rate of the different types schools districts participating in the Impact
Aid Construction program. Local educational agencies must educate children residing
on Indian lands, but their local governments may not tax the Indian lands on which those
children reside. Because they cannot tax these lands, they tend to have insufficient
revenue to repay borrowed funds for capital improvements. Furthermore, many of these
LEAs are in States that offer little or no assistance for capital projects. As a result of the
lack of funds, their school facilities deteriorate.
Not surprisingly, the condition of school facilities in LEAs with large proportions of
children residing on Indian lands is particularly poor. The National Indian Impacted
Schools Association (NIISA) conducted a survey of its members in 1996. Indian
students comprised 28 percent of the enrollment among the responding LEAs. The
respondents' estimated cost of bringing their schools into good overall condition was
$6.9 million on average; the median estimate was $1.0 million. Even though these
estimates are large, many of the survey respondents indicated they did not factor in the
cost of building additional classroom space to meet anticipated enrollment growth over
the next 5 to 10 years. The needs of LEAs with at least 50 percent Indian lands students
are likely to be even greater on average, since these districts tend to have a smaller than
average tax base, which likely leads to deferred maintenance and overcrowding.
Impact on Education
In addition to posing safety hazards, inadequate school facilities hinder the education of
children. A 1997 paper by the Department of Education's Planning and Evaluation
Service, Impact of Inadequate School Facilities on Student Learning, found that a
number of studies had demonstrated that good facilities are an important precondition
for student achievement.
G-9
SCHOOL RENOVATION
School Renovation
In North Dakota high schools, school condition and student achievement were
positively correlated.
In the District of Columbia, students' standardized achievement scores, when
controlled for by such variables as socioeconomic status, were found to be lower
among students in poor school facilities.
In rural Virginia high schools, student achievement scores, controlled for
socioeconomic status, were as much as 5 percentage points lower in buildings with
lower quality ratings.
The link between school condition and student achievement is hardly surprising.
Students in climate-controlled environments with adequate light that are free of
hazardous substances, such as lead paint, would be expected to perform better than
students in poor school facilities that are either too warm or too cold, too dark, and that
expose them to hazardous substances.
Need for School Renovation Funds
GAO notes in School Facilities: Condition of America's Schools that LEAs are having
difficulty raising funds for school construction. Approximately one-third of LEAs had an
average of two bond initiatives fail in the past 10 years. Insufficient tax bases (i.e., low
assessed value of property per pupil) and the passage of property tax limitations also
limited the availability of funds for school construction. Targeted Federal assistance
would enable LEAs to improve the condition of their schools, thereby reducing both:
(1) health and safety problems faced by students; and (2) impediments to learning.
By targeting funds to LEAs with large proportions of children residing on Indian lands
and other high-need LEAs, funds would be spent by communities that likely would not
have been able to improve their school facilities without Federal assistance. The
targeting of funds distinguishes this school renovation proposal from others that relied
solely on arbitrage to raise funds for schools.
SELECTED PROGRAM PEFORMANCE INFORMATION
This section presents selected program performance information, including goals;
indicators; and, where possible, an assessment of the progress made toward achieving
program results. Achievement of targets is based on the cumulative effect of resources
provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2001 and future years, and the
resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.
Other performance indicators and strategies for this program will be included in the
Department's Annual Program Performance Plan and Annual Program Performance
Report.
Performance Goal: To improve the condition of school facilities in communities
that lack the necessary resources for school renovation.
G-10
SCHOOL RENOVATION
School Renovation
Objective: LEAs receiving funds report that the adequacy of their school facilities
is improving.
Indicator
2001
2002
2003
2004
Ninety percent of LEAs
receiving funds report that the
adequacy of their school
facilities is improving.
Baseline data to be
established in FY 2002.
90%
90%
90%
PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 1
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Projects
0
8,300
8,300
Grant volume
0
$175,000
$175,000
Loan subsidy
0
$1,125,000
$1,125,000
Loan volume
0
$6,540,698
$6,540,698
1 All figures are estimates.
G-11
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
BILLINGUAL AND
IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Divider Title:
Department of Education
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request
CONTENTS
Page
Appropriations language
H- 1
Analysis of language provisions and changes
H- 2
Amounts available for obligation
H- 3
Obligations by object classification
H- 4
Summary of changes
H- 5
Authorizing legislation
H- 6
Appropriations history
H- 7
Summary of request
H- 8
Activities:
Bilingual education:
Instructional services
H- 12
Support services
H- 17
Professional development
H- 21
Foreign language assistance
H- 26
Immigrant education
H- 29
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
[For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, bilingual, foreign language and
immigrant education activities authorized by parts A and C and section 7203 of title VII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, without regard to section 7103(b),²
$406,000,000: Provided, That State educational agencies may use all, or any part of, their
part C allocation for competitive grants to local educational agencies.³ ](Department of
Education Appropriations Act, 2000, as enacted by section 1000(a)(4) of Division B of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-113).)
NOTES
No FY 2001 appropriation language is provided because the requested resources are proposed for later
transmittal upon enactment of proposed legislation to revise and reauthorize programs currently authorized under
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Each language provision that is followed by a footnote reference is explained in the Analysis of Language
Provisions and Changes document which follows the appropriation language.
H-1
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes
Language Provision
Explanation
'[ and section 7203 of title VII of the
This language allows funding only for foreign
Elementary and Secondary Education Act,]
language assistance grants authorized by
section 7203; no funding has been made
available in recent years for the incentive
program authorized by section 7205.
²[ without regard to section 7103(b), ]
This language overrides the statutory
requirement that at least 25 percent of the
Bilingual Education appropriation be used for
Subpart 3, Professional Development.
³[Provided, That State educational agencies
This language provides flexibility to States to
may use all, or any part of, their part C
make Immigrant Education subgrants on
allocation for competitive grants to local
either a formula or discretionary grant basis.
educational agencies.]
H-2
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Amounts Available for Obligation
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Discretionary authority:
Annual appropriation
$380,000
$406,000
$460,000
Unobligated balance expiring
-677
0
0
Total, direct obligations
379,323
406,000
460,000
H-3
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Obligations by Object Classification
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Contractual services and supplies:
Advisory and assistance services
$3,870
$3,708
$3,990
Peer review
610
836
1,065
Other services
1,500
1,500
2,000
Subtotal
5,980
6,044
7,055
Supplies and materials
5
0
0
Grants
373,338
399,956
452,945
Total, direct obligations
379,323
406,000
460,000
H-4
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Summary of Changes
($000s)
2000
$406,000
2001
460,000
Net change
+54,000
2000 base
Change from base
Increases:
Program:
Increase in Instructional Services to fund
113 additional projects
$162,500
+$17,500
Increase in Support Services to increase
size of SEA grants in States with concentrations
of limited English proficient students; increase the
scope of operations of the National Clearinghouse
for Bilingual Education; expand evaluation
activities related to data collection on program
performance; and implement the new academic
excellence and instructional materials activities
14,000
+2,000
Increase in Professional Development, to award
131 additional grants and 195 additional fellowships
to address the critical shortage of trained instructional
personnel serving limited English proficient students
71,500
+28,500
Increase in Foreign Language Assistance to make
49 additional awards to SEAs and LEAs
8,000
+6,000
Net change
+54,000
H-5
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Authorizing Legislation
($000s)
2000
2000
2001
2001
Activity
Authorized
Estimate
Authorized
Request
Bilingual and immigrant education:
Instructional services (ESEA-VII-A-1)
Indefinite
$162,500
To be determined 1
$180,000
Support services (ESEA-VII-A-2)
Indefinite
14,000
To be determined 1
16,000
Professional development (ESEA-VII-A-3)
Indefinite 2
71,500
To be determined 1
100,000
Foreign language (ESEA-VII-B)
Indefinite 3
8,000
To be determined 1
14,000
Immigrant education (ESEA-VII-C)
Indefinite
150,000
To be determined 1
150,000
H-6
Total definite authorization
Total appropriation
$406,000
$460,000
'The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
Section 7103(b) of the law reserves a minimum of 25 percent of the total Part A appropriation for subpart 3 (Professional development) programs. Since FY 1986,
appropriations language has overridden this requirement.
³From a portion of the funds appropriated for Part B of Title VII, the Secretary is required to make elementary school foreign language incentive payments under
section 7205. Funding for incentive payments may not exceed $20 million. Since FY 1996, appropriations language has overridden the requirement to make incentive
payments.
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Appropriations History
($000s)
Budget
Estimate
House
Senate
to Congress
Allowance
Allowance
Appropriation
1992
$200,789
$249,000
$201,814
$225,407
1993
233,645
231,308
224,191
225,745
1994
232,251
242,789
232,251
240,155
1995
253,992
247,572
238,082
245,200
1995 Rescission
---
-38,500
-32,380
-38,500
1996
300,000
150,000
150,000
178,000
1997
261,700
167,190
185,000¹
261,700
1998
354,000
354,000
354,000
354,000
1999
387,000
354,000
354,000
380,000
2000
415,000
380,000
394,000
406,000
2001
460,000
'Reflects Senate Committee action.
H-7
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
(in thousands of dollars)
D
2001
President's Request Compared
\
1999
2000
President's
to FY 2000 Appropriation
Office. Account. Program and Activity
M
Appropriation
Appropriation
Request
Amount
Percent
OFFICE OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND MINORITY
LANGUAGES AFFAIRS (OBEMLA)
Bilinqual and Immigrant Education (ESEA VII)
1. Bilingual education (Part A) :
(a) Instructional services (subpart 1)
D
160,000
162,500
180,000
17,500
10.8%
(b) Support services (subpart 2)
D
14,000
14,000
16,000
2,000
14.3%
(c) Professional development (subpart 3)
D
50,000
71,500
100,000
28,500
39.9%
Subtotal
224,000
248,000
296,000
48,000
19.4%
2. Foreign language assistance (Part B section 7203)
D
6,000
8,000
14,000
6,000
75.0%
3. Immigrant education (Part C)
D
150,000
150,000
150,000
0
0.0%
Total
380,000
406,000
460,000
54,000
13.3%
Outlays
311,331
496,446
406,760
(89,686)
-18.18
TOTAL, OBEMLA
380,000
406,000
460,000
54,000
13.3%
NOTE: All activities in this account for which funds are proposed in fiscal year 2001 are requested under proposed
legislation.
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Summary of Request
The programs in the Bilingual and Immigrant Education account all deal with second language
learning. The Bilingual Education program assists school districts in teaching English to limited
English proficient (LEP) students and in helping these students meet the same challenging
State standards required of all other students. The Foreign Language Assistance program
provides discretionary grants to State and local educational agencies to support innovative
model programs that contribute to improving the quality of foreign language instruction in the
United States. Immigrant Education provides formula grants to support school districts with
large numbers of recent immigrant students. Typically, school districts use Immigrant
Education funds to teach English and prepare LEP students to enter all-English classrooms.
The resources in this account are proposed for later transmittal upon enactment of proposed
legislation. Under current law, these activities are authorized by Title VII of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For the programs in this account, the Educational
Excellence for All Children Act of 1999, the Administration's ESEA reauthorization proposal,
would consolidate certain bilingual education authorizations and significantly increase the ability
of the Department to hold grantees accountable for the effectiveness of services provided in
teaching English to LEP students and assisting them to meet challenging State standards. The
legislative proposal would also shift the Foreign Language Assistance program to Title X of
ESEA, and increase its emphasis on improving and expanding foreign language instruction at
the elementary school level.
Over the last two decades, the LEP student population in the 50 States has grown dramatically,
increasing from less than 1 million in 1980 to more than 3.3 million in the 1996-97 school year.
Growth of Limited English Proficient Student
Population: 1980-1997
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
P661
1996
Source: State educational agency reports.
H-9
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Summary of Request (cont'd)
The Title I "Prospects" study found that, in 1994, LEP students represented between 6 and
8 percent of students enrolled in public schools. California, New York, and Texas, traditionally
the "big three" in terms of the number of LEP students, continue to enroll the majority of LEP
students (63 percent in 1997). However, since 1993, the rate of growth of the LEP student
population in other States has far exceeded that of the "big three."
Percent Increase in Limited English Proficient Students
60%
40%
20%
0%
"Big 3" Increase
All Others Increase
In 10 States (Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon,
South Carolina, and Tennessee) the LEP population grew by more than 50 percent between
school years 1992-93 and 1996-97. Just a few years ago, several of these States enrolled only
a handful of LEP students. These demographic trends underscore the need for continued
Federal assistance for the programs in this account.
The Administration's 2001 request for this account totals $460 million, a 13.3 percent increase
over the 2000 level. The request supports the Administration's commitment to improving
educational services for LEP students and ensuring that educational reform benefits these
students.
The request emphasizes the following activities:
For Part A, Subpart 1 (Instructional Services), the Department would increase the number
of grants, particularly to the growing number of districts that are experiencing an influx of
LEP students but have little prior experience serving them.
For Part A, Subpart 2 (Support Services), the Department would increase funding for State
educational agency grants to enable States to assist local school districts in implementing
accountability systems.
H-10
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Summary of Request (cont'd)
For Part A, Subpart 3 (Professional Development), the Department would increase the
number of grants to address the critical shortage of trained bilingual and English as a
second language teachers.
For Foreign Language Assistance, the Department would increase the number of grants to
improve the quality of foreign language instruction at the elementary level. This program
supports the national goal (proposed in the Educational Excellence for All Children Act)
that, by 2010, half of all elementary schools will offer high-quality foreign language
programs.
The continuing growth in the number of limited English proficient students, and their presence in
schools that often have little prior experience in serving them, signals a need to continue and
strengthen Federal programs to assist schools in improving services for this population. The
Administration's request targets Instructional Services funds to school districts with little prior
experience in serving LEP students.
The Department's 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey found that only 30 percent of public
school teachers instructing LEP students had received training for teaching LEP students and
that fewer than 3 percent of teachers with LEP students had earned a degree in English as a
second language or bilingual education. The Administration's request for Bilingual Professional
Development grants would produce an estimated 8,000 new bilingual and English as a second
language teachers to address this critical need.
H-11
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Instructional services
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title VII, Part A, Subpart 1)
FY 2001 Authorization ($000s): To be determined
Budget authority ($000s):
2000
2001
Change
$162,500
$180,000
+$17,500
'The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Title VII, Part A, Subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) currently
authorizes four discretionary grant activities to assist local educational agencies (LEAs) in
implementing high-quality programs for limited English proficient (LEP) students. The
Administration's ESEA reauthorization proposal would consolidate two of the activities (Program
Development and Implementation Grants and Enhancement Grants) into a new three-year
grant activity, "Program Development and Enhancement Grants." The Administration's
proposal would also strengthen accountability provisions, replacing the current requirement that
projects be evaluated every two years with an annual evaluation requirement that specifically
includes an assessment of student progress in English. The proposal would also require that
all projects develop the English language skills of participating students and help them meet
challenging State content standards.
Under the Administration's proposal, Subpart 1 would authorize three different categories of
grants, primarily to LEAs, for instructional services to LEP students. The three categories are:
Three-year Program Development and Enhancement Grants for school districts to develop
and implement comprehensive preschool, elementary, or secondary education programs
for LEP students;
Five-year Comprehensive School Grants to implement school-wide education programs, in
coordination with Title I, for LEP students in schools with concentrations of such students;
and
Five-year Systemwide Improvement Grants to improve, reform, and upgrade relevant
programs and operations within an entire LEA that enrolls a significant concentration of
LEP students.
H-12
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Instructional services
All grants build local capacity to provide appropriate educational services to LEP children, and
must be aligned with standards-based State and local school reform efforts. All projects must
be coordinated with other relevant programs and services to meet the full range of needs of
participating students.
Under the reauthorization proposal, Program Development and Enhancement grants would
generally support programs in school districts with little prior experience in operating bilingual
and English as a second language programs. Comprehensive School and Systemwide
Improvement grants would be designed for districts with concentrations of LEP students that
typically already have experience in serving such students; grantees would develop their
proposal in consultation with a parent advisory council; would focus their program on assisting
participants to meet challenging State content and performance standards; and make their
projects an integral part of the overall academic program in the school or district. Prior to
making fourth- and fifth-year continuation grants for Comprehensive and Systemwide projects,
the Department would determine if a program is making continuous and substantial progress in
assisting children to learn English and achieve to challenging State content and performance
standards. If the Department determined that these grantees were not making such progress, it
would require that the grantee develop and submit an improvement plan for its program. If the
Department determined that the grantee was not making substantial progress after the following
year, it would deny the grantee its fifth-year continuation award.
Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:
($ in 000s)
1996
$117,200
1997
141,650
1998
160,000
1999
160,000
2000
162,500
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
For 2001, the Administration's request for Subpart 1 is $180 million, $17.5 million more than
the 2000 level. State reports indicate that the number of LEP students grew by 34 percent
between school years 1992-93 and 1996-97. Reports also show that the rate of growth of this
population has been especially rapid in many States that had only a handful of LEP students
just a few years ago. Consequently, there is a critical need to expand the level of services
provided under Subpart 1.
Within Subpart 1, the Administration proposes to continue the policy, adopted for fiscal year
2000, of allocating most of the increase to grants to school districts that are experiencing rapid
growth in the number of LEP students and that have little prior experience in serving these
students. The Department would also give priority to school districts that have a proven record
of success in helping LEP students learn English and achieve to high academic standards.
H-13
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Instructional services
Two recent studies by the National Research Council (NRC) support the Administration's
policies regarding bilingual education. In its 1997 report, Improving Schooling for Language-
Minority Children, the NRC concluded that "the beneficial effects of native-language instruction
are clearly evident in programs that have been labeled 'bilingual education,' but they also
appear in some programs that are labeled "immersion."
A second NRC report, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (1998), states that,
"schools have the responsibility to accommodate the linguistic needs of students with limited
proficiency in English." Further, the report recommends teaching language minority children to
read first in their native language if they arrive at school with no proficiency in English and if
appropriate materials and teachers are available.
These two studies cut through the controversy regarding appropriate services for limited
English proficient students and strongly support the provision of special instructional programs
for LEP students. They are also consistent with the Administration's policy of funding a variety
of instructional approaches that local schools believe are best suited to serving LEP students in
the district.
Over the past 31 years, the Bilingual Education program has made a major contribution to the
growth of special instructional programs designed to meet the needs of LEP students. While
States typically ignored these students as late as the 1960s, at least 41 States now have laws
relating to the provision of appropriate services to limited English proficient students, and 36
States provide State funds to serve this population. The Department's Title I "Prospects" report
concluded that, in 1994, between 83 and 91 percent of LEP students attended schools that
offered English as a second language or bilingual education programs in those students' grade
level. The "Prospects" report also provided encouraging evidence that schools have become
more responsive to the special needs of LEP students, as measured by the extent to which
they coordinate and integrate instruction for LEP students with regular instruction, and show
support and respect for the families of LEP students.
Census data also suggest an improvement in the quality of instructional services for these
students. Although the number of children who spoke a language other than English at home
grew by nearly 1.8 million between 1980 and 1990, 71 percent of this increase was among the
group that spoke English very well and likely no longer needed special instructional services.
While the Census data do not establish a direct link between these positive statistics and the
availability of bilingual education, we can infer that the provision of bilingual instructional
services contributed to the increased English proficiency of language minority students over the
decade.
SELECTED PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This section presents selected program performance information, including goals;
indicators; targets; and, where possible, an assessment of the progress made toward
H-14
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Instructional services
achieving program results. Achievement of targets is based on the cumulative effect of the
resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2001 and future years, and the
resources and efforts invested by those served by the program.
Other performance data for this program are included in the Department's Annual Performance
Plan and Annual Program Performance Report.
Performance goal: Help limited-English proficient (LEP) students reach high academic
standards.
Objective: Improve English proficiency and academic achievement of students served by
Title VII of the Bilingual Education Act.
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
Students in the program will annually
92%
93%
94%
95%
demonstrate continuous and educationally
(oral)
(oral)
(oral)
(oral)
significant progress on oral or written English
proficiency measures. FY 1998 baseline:
85%
88%
91%
95%
According to biennial evaluation reports from a
(written)
(written)
(written)
(written)
sample of 1998 projects, in 91 percent of
projects, at least 75 percent of students showed
gains in oral English proficiency and in 82
percent of projects at least 75 percent of
students made gains in written English
proficiency.
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
Students in the program will annually
demonstrate continuous and educationally
65%
67%
70%
75%
significant progress on appropriate academic
achievement measures of language arts,
reading, and math. FY 1998 baseline:
According to biennial evaluation reports from a
sample of 1998 projects in more than 61 percent
of projects at least 75 percent of students,
showed gains in academic achievement in
language arts, reading, and math.
H-15
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Instructional services
These data are from the biennial reports submitted by each Instructional Services grantee. The
Department will evaluate progress on the indicators at regular intervals through synthesis of the
data in these reports. The Educational Excellence for all Children Act of 1999 would require
annual evaluations and would specifically require data on the speed at which LEP students are
redesignated as English proficient. Enactment of these provisions would significantly improve
the quality of available data to measure the progress of LEP students in Title VII projects.
The Department recently contacted a number of State educational agencies to obtain data on
how quickly LEP students are exited from bilingual and ESL programs. Most of these States
reported that students typically exit within a period of three to four years. The Department is
developing a form to br used by grantees to collect and report uniform data on the rates at
which S dents are recessified as English proficient. Further, the Department intends to add an
indicator on reclassification rates in time to include it in the fiscal year 2002 request.
PROGRAM OUTCOME MEASURES
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Development and enhancement
0
0
$36,000
Number of projects
0
0
240
Number of students
0
0
104,348
Program development
$17,304
$31,959
$26,375
Number of projects
111
208
173
Number of students
50,284
92,903
76,670
Program enhancement
$9,694
$9,679
0
Number of projects
70
70
0
Number of students
38,563
38,563
0
Comprehensive school grants
$90,748
$87,891
$80,507
Number of projects
369
343
312
Number of students
146,072
141,532
129,641
Systemwide grants
$41,730
$32,378
$36,378
Number of projects
90
69
78
Number of students
1,098,074
852,058
957,321
Peer review of new award
applications
$524
$593
$740
Total -- Projects
640
690
803
Total -- Students
1,332,993
1,125,056
1,267,980
H-16
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Support services
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title VII, Part A, Subpart 2)
FY 2001 Authorization ($000s): To be determined
Budget authority ($000s):
2000
2001
Change
$14,000
$16,000
+$2,000
'The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Part A, Subpart 2 of the Bilingual Education Act currently authorizes five kinds of support
service awards that contribute to the improvement of the quality of instructional services for
limited English proficient (LEP) students. These activities help ensure that local educational
agencies (LEAs) have access to the best information available about services for those
students. The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999, the Administration's ESEA
reauthorization proposal, would reauthorize all five activities but would convert the Academic
Excellence activity to a State recognition program. The proposal would also expand the
authorized activities for SEA grants to include assisting LEAs to develop data collection and
accountability systems.
Under the reauthorization proposal, Subpart 2 would authorize:
Grants to State Educational Agencies for technical assistance to LEAs related to program
design, capacity building, assessment of student performance, program evaluation, and
data collection on LEP students and on educational programs and services for those
students. SEAs would also review each Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 application from
applicants within the State and comment on its consistency with the State plan developed
under ESEA, Title I;
Research and Evaluation grants and contracts to gather data related to improving
educational programs for limited English proficient students;
A National Clearinghouse contract to collect, analyze, synthesize, and disseminate
information about programs for limited English proficient students;
H-17
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Support services
Competitive Academic Excellence awards to assist States in recognizing local educational
agencies and other public and non-profit entities with exemplary programs; and
Instructional Materials Development grants to foster the creation of instructional materials
in languages where they are not readily available.
Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:
($ in 000s)
1996
$9,700
1997
10,000
1998
14,000
1999
14,000
2000
14,000
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
For 2001 the Administration requests $16 million for Subpart 2, an increase of $2 million over
the 2000 level.
The request would provide an increase for State agency grants so that States can continue to
collect data, provide technical assistance, and review Instructional Services and Professional
Development applications from within the State. The increase would also allow States to assist
LEAs in developing accountability systems.
The request would also provide an increase for research and evaluations to support a variety of
studies that will collect data needed for the Subpart 1 and Subpart 3 performance indicators
and continue to expand the knowledge base for educating LEP students. In keeping with the
larger reauthorization themes, the Department plans to focus the bilingual research effort on
issues relating to accountability and on professional development. The Department will
continue to contract for an annual analysis of evaluation reports that OBEMLA receives from
Subpart 1 grantees; this analysis is essential for measuring progress against two of the key
bilingual performance indicators. In fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the Department will fund a
similar project for evaluation reports submitted by Subpart 3 (Professional Development)
grantees.
Continuing prior efforts, the Department would fund additional projects to improve assessments
of LEP students within large-scale surveys such as NAEP. We also propose to fund a new
study of preservice and inservice preparation programs for teachers of LEP students.
Research funds would also support the continuation of a descriptive study of services to LEP
students across the Nation, which we plan to initiate in fiscal year 2000 -- the last descriptive
study, completed in 1993, provided exceptional information. The new study would measure
changes in the way LEP students have been served over the past decade, including changes
resulting from the 1994 amendments to Titles I and VII of ESEA.
H-18
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Support services
The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education currently processes more than three million
data requests each year (including queries to the Clearinghouse website). The number of
requests has grown dramatically over the last five years, reflecting the growth of the LEP
student population, the presence of these students in districts that have little experience in
serving them, and educators' increasing need for current information on serving LEP students.
The Clearinghouse is an integral part of the Department's efforts to achieve Objective 4.1 of the
Strategic Plan, to provide "fast, seamless service and dissemination of high-quality information
and products." The requested increase would permit the Clearinghouse to expand its Internet
operations to make a broader range of data readily available to teachers and practitioners.
The Administration also requests funds to implement the proposed State Academic Excellence
grants. This activity will enable States to recognize exemplary programs for LEP students and
to encourage other school districts to adopt these successful practices.
Finally, the Administration requests funds for instructional materials grants to make a small
number of grants to develop and disseminate high-quality instructional materials in languages
where such materials are not readily available.
SELECTED PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This section presents selected program performance information, including goals; indicators;
targets; and, where possible, an assessment of the progress made toward achieving program
results. Achievement of targets is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in
previous years and those requested in FY 2001 and future years, and the resources and efforts
invested by those served by this program.
Other performance indicators and strategies for this program are included in the Department's
Annual Performance Plan and Annual Program Performance Report.
Performance goal: Help limited-English proficient (LEP) students reach high academic
standards.
Objective: Provide effective guidance and technical assistance and identify and
disseminate reliable information on effective practices.
H-19
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Support services
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
The number of inquiries to the National
3,565,000
4,100,000
4,700,000
5,400,000
Clearinghouse on Bilingual Education will
(+15%)
(+15%)
(+15%)
(+15%)
increase 15 percent per year.
FY 1998 baseline: 3,100,000
The contractor reports monthly data on the number of "hits" on the Clearinghouse website. In
school year 1998-99, the number of "hits" exceeded the target since it grew to 4.4 million, a
42 percent increase rather than the than the projected 15 percent.
The Department is aware that the above indicator is insufficient to show the effectiveness of the
range of activities funded under Support Services. The Department intends to conduct an
evaluation of the SEA grant activity during fiscal year 2000 and to use the results to design a
new performance indicator to be included in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.
PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Grants to SEAs
$7,600
$8,594
$9,100
Number of projects
53
58
58
Research and evaluation
$3,899
$3,900
$4,200
National clearinghouse
$1,500
$1,500
$2,000
Academic excellence
$1,000
0
$200
Number of projects
7
0
10
Instructional materials
0
0
$490
Number of projects
0
0
2
Peer review of new award
applications
$1
$6
$10
H-20
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Professional development
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title VII, Part A, Subpart 3)
FY 2001 Authorization ($000s): To be determined'
Budget authority ($000s):
2000
2001
Change
$71,500
$100,000
+$28,500
'The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Part A, Subpart 3 of the Bilingual Education Act currently authorizes four grant activities
designed to increase the pool of appropriately trained educational personnel and to strengthen
the skills of teachers already providing instruction to limited English proficient (LEP) children.
Grants are made for up to five years. The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999,
the Administration's ESEA reauthorization proposal, would amend the current law to focus each
training activity on a specific kind of professional development, eliminate the authorization for
post-doctoral fellowships, and increase accountability by expanding the list of evaluation
requirements and requiring annual rather than biennial evaluations. Under the Administration's
reauthorization proposal, the four authorized activities would be:
The Training for All Teachers program, which would provide 3-year grants to one or more
local educational agencies (LEAs) (in consortium with one or more State educational
agencies (SEAs), institutions of higher education, or nonprofit organizations) to develop
and support ongoing professional development to teachers and other educational
personnel with a baccalaureate degree to improve their provision of services to limited
English proficient students;
Teachers and Personnel Grants, which would provide 5-year grants to institutions of higher
education for preservice professional development to improve the preparation of
prospective teachers who are preparing to teach LEP students;
The Career Ladder program, which would provide 5-year grants to assist consortia of one
or more institutions of higher education and one or more LEAs or SEAs to develop and
implement bilingual education programs that provide pre-baccalaureate coursework and
teacher training to educational personnel who do not have a BA degree and assist
participants in obtaining a degree and certification or licensure as a teacher; and
H-21
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Professional development
The Graduate Fellowship program, which provides financial assistance to fellows at the
masters and doctoral levels in fields related to bilingual education. Fellows must
subsequently work in the field of bilingual education for a period of time equal to the period
of the fellowship or repay the fellowship amount.
Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:
($ in 000s)
1996
$1,100
1997
5,000
1998
25,000
1999
50,000
2000
71,500
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request for Subpart 3 is $100 million, $28.5 million
more than the 2000 level. The request reflects the growing body of evidence of the need for
additional and better-trained teachers to serve the rapidly increasing number of LEP students.
It also supports performance indicator 16 for Objective 2.4 in the Department's Strategic Plan
that, "increasing percentages of teachers will be equipped with strategies to enable students
with limited English proficiency or disabilities to meet challenging standards." The Department's
Title I "Prospects" report concluded that less than half of LEP students have regular teachers
certified in either bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL). Further,
according to the report, administrators in 26 percent of schools with vacancies for bilingual and
ESL teachers reported that it would be difficult or impossible to fill those vacancies. The State
of California by itself recently reported a shortfall of 20,000 bilingual and ESL teachers.
A 1992 program evaluation documented a high placement rate for participants in the
Department's bilingual professional development programs. Specifically, the evaluation found
that 83 percent of participants planned to seek positions in bilingual education, 77 percent of a
sample of program graduates were employed in bilingual education positions, and 93 percent of
sampled program graduates reported holding a position as education professionals since
graduation. The Department recently funded a study under Subpart 2 to obtain more current
data on participants in these programs.
The Administration's request to increase funding for the Training for all Teachers activity
addresses the need to improve the quality of teaching skills for teachers who are currently
providing services to limited English proficient students. Specifically, the requested funding
would address the research finding that less than half of all LEP students have regular teachers
who are certified in bilingual education or English as a second language. The request to
continue to invest funds in the Teacher and Personnel Grants program addresses the well
documented shortage of bilingual and English as a second language teachers and the need to
H-22
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Professional development
prepare new teachers to fill these positions. The request to continue funding the Career Ladder
program recognizes that another way to remedy the shortage is to assist teacher aides and
other non-certified personnel to become fully certified bilingual and English as a second
language teachers.
Funds requested for Academic Fellowships will increase the pool of individuals with advanced
training in bilingual education who can serve as teacher trainers, researchers, and support
service providers. These individuals can make an important contribution to promoting systemic
educational reform, as it relates to LEP students, as members of the faculty of schools of
education, as resource teachers or program administrators in LEAs with concentrations of LEP
students, and as researchers.
SELECTED PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This section presents selected program performance information, including goals; indicators;
targets; and, where possible, an assessment of the progress made toward achieving program
results. Achievement of targets is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in
previous years and those requested in FY 2001 and future years, and the resources and efforts
invested by those served by this program.
Other performance data for this program are included in the Department's Annual Performance
Plan and Annual Program Performance Report.
Performance goal: Help limited-English proficient (LEP) students reach high academic
standards.
Objective: Improve quality and quantity of educational personnel serving LEP students.
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
At least 4,000 teachers per year will
4,000
6,000
8,000
8,000
complete high-quality bilingual
education/English as a second language
certification or degree programs through
Title-VII funded professional development
programs. Fiscal year 1997 baseline: 770
H-23
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Professional development
In fiscal year 1997, Congress appropriated only $5 million for bilingual professional
development. Because of limited 1997 funds, the Department was unable to meet this goal in
1997, but expects to exceed the goal in 1999 and thereafter. ED project officers collect data on
the number of participants in all 4 programs. The Department estimates the number of these
participants who annually complete certification or degree programs based on a 1991
evaluation of bilingual professional development programs. In 1997, more than 2,300
individuals participated in these projects. The Department estimates that 770 of these
participants received a certificate or a degree. The Department recently awarded a small
contract to update these estimates. The Administration's reauthorization proposal would
significantly improve the quality of data available on the performance of these programs by
requiring professional development grantees to provide annual data on the numbers of
participants, graduates, and placements in bilingual education classrooms.
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
Ninety percent of educational personnel trained
90%
90%
90%
90%
through Title VII will be placed in an
instructional setting with LEP students.
Fiscal year 1991 baseline: 83 percent
ED project officers collect data on the number of participants in these programs through normal
monitoring but do not routinely collect data on the placement of participants. Baseline data are
from a 1991 study of the antecedent Educational Personnel Development program. ED staff
will work with grantees to improve placement rates by ensuring that professional development
activities are directly related to the needs of LEAs. The Administration's reauthorization
proposal would significantly improve the quality of data available on the performance of these
programs by requiring professional development grantees to annually provide data on the
numbers of participants, graduates, and placements in bilingual education classrooms.
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
At least 93 percent of the bilingual fellows who
93%
93%
93%
93%
have completed their studies will be employed
training classroom teachers or in other
positions directly related to serving LEP
students. Fiscal year 1998 baseline: 92
percent
By statute, individuals participating in the bilingual fellowship program must subsequently work
in a position directly related to serving LEP students for a period of time equivalent to the
fellowship period or must repay the amount of the fellowship. The Department maintains a data
base to track compliance with this requirement.
H-24
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Professional development
PROGRAM OUTCOME MEASURES
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Training for all teachers
$6,641
$15,768
$24,768
Number of projects
33
77
125
Teachers and personnel
$23,868
$30,908
$40,408
Number of projects
119
159
207
Career ladder
$14,176
$18,609
$25,609
Number of projects
62
87
122
Graduate fellowships
$5,270
$6,000
$9,000
Number of fellows
344
392
587
Peer review of new award
applications
$45
$215
$215
H-25
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Foreign language assistance
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title VII, Part B)
FY 2001 Authorization ($000s): To be determined1
Budget authority ($000s):
2000
2001
Change
$8,000
$14,000
+$6,000
'The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Title VII, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) currently authorizes
competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) and State educational agencies (SEAs)
to increase the quality and quantity of foreign language instruction in the United States. Current
law also authorizes the Elementary School Foreign Language Incentive program, which has not
been funded in recent years. This program authorizes formula grants to public elementary
schools that operate programs designed to lead to communicative competency in a foreign
language.
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999, the Administration's ESEA
reauthorization proposal would reauthorize the Elementary School Foreign Language
Assistance program as Title X, Part I. The new legislation would continue to authorize
competitive grants to SEAs and LEAs, but would eliminate the authorization for the Elementary
School Foreign Language Incentive program. The Department would make 3-year grants to
SEAs to promote systemic improvement of foreign language instruction and to LEAs for model
programs of instruction that exhibit the potential for continuing beyond the grant period. SEAs
would be eligible to apply for grants only if they had established or were establishing State
standards for foreign language instruction or require foreign language instruction in all public
elementary schools. States could use grants to develop foreign language standards and
assessments aligned with those standards, or to support institutions of higher education in
developing programs to prepare elementary foreign language teachers needed in the State.
LEAs could use grants to develop and implement standards-based elementary school foreign
language programs. Specifically, they would be authorized to spend grant funds for
professional development activities, partnerships with institutions of higher education, and
implementation of instructional approaches that make use of advanced educational
technologies.
H-26
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Foreign language assistance
Both SEA and LEA grant recipients would provide a 50 percent match from non-Federal or
private funds. If the applicant demonstrated sufficient hardship, the Secretary could waive the
matching requirement. Grantees would submit an annual evaluation of the project's
effectiveness in meeting its goals and objectives.
Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:
($ in 000s)
1996
$10,093
1997
5,050
1998
5,000
1999
6,000
2000
8,000
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
The Administration's request for Foreign Language Assistance is $14 million, a $6 million
increase compared with the 2000 level. This increase is justified by the potential of the
proposed new foreign language program to have a major impact on foreign language instruction
in the United States. The program could greatly expedite the rate at which States establish
foreign language standards for elementary schools, significantly increase the pool of teachers
prepared to provide elementary level foreign language instruction, and greatly expand the
number of elementary schools that offer high-quality foreign language programs.
The optimal time to begin learning a second language is in elementary school, when children
have the greatest ability to learn and excel in foreign language. However, less than one-third of
elementary schools in the United States offer foreign language instruction and those programs
typically offer only an introductory exposure to the language. State educational agency projects
funded under this authority could use their grant to develop State elementary-level foreign
language standards and the assessments needed to measure student progress towards
meeting those standards. LEA projects would contribute to the expansion of high-quality
language instruction at the elementary level and could serve as models for other districts. An
investment in high-quality elementary foreign language programs will produce bilingual adults
who can work to make America's industry more competitive in international markets. The
request supports the national goal (set forth in the Administration's bill) that by 2010, 50 percent
of all public elementary schools will offer high-quality, standards-based foreign language
programs.
SELECTED PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This section presents selected program performance information, including goals; indicators;
targets; and, where possible, an assessment of the progress made toward achieving program
results. Achievement of targets is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in
H-27
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Foreign language assistance
previous years and those requested in FY 2001 and future years, and the resources and efforts
invested by those served by this program.
Other performance data for this program are included in the Department's Annual Performance
Plan and Annual Program Performance Report.
Performance goal: Help students reach national education objective of mastering one or
more foreign languages.
Objective: Improve foreign language proficiency of students served by the Foreign
Language Assistance Program.
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
The percentage of students participating in
Foreign Language Assistance program-
supported instruction who demonstrate
educationally significant progress toward
achieving communicative language proficiency
will increase annually. Baseline will be
established in the spring of 2000.
The Department awarded a contract in fiscal year 1999 to obtain baseline data for this indicator
and to design a strategy for future data collection.
PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES
($000s)
1999
2000
2001
Number of new awards
54
11
49
Number of continuations
0
54
65
Peer review of new award
applications
$60
$22
$100
H-28
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Immigrant education
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title VII, Part C)
FY 2001 Authorization ($000s): To be determined
Budget authority ($000s):
2000
2001
Change
$150,000
$150,000
0
'The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2000; new authorizing legislation is proposed.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Part C of Title VII, ESEA authorizes a formula program to States for services to immigrant
students who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for less than three academic years. Each
State receives an award equal to its share of all eligible immigrant students. State educational
agencies pass funds to local educational agencies that have at least 500 recent immigrant
students, or in which such students represent at least 3 percent of the enrollment. School
districts typically use these funds to operate programs for limited English proficient students,
including recent immigrants.
The statute authorizes States to use a portion of their allocation to make discretionary (rather
than formula) grants to local educational agencies if the appropriation exceeds $50 million.
Since fiscal year 1996, Congress has enacted special appropriations language, proposed by
the Administration, to authorize States to use all or any part of their allocation for discretionary
grants to local educational agencies based on the quality of their proposed program or the
special needs of the district.
The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 would reauthorize this program and
would authorize SEAs to use any part of the allocation to make discretionary grants, regardless
of the appropriation level.
Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:
($ in 000s)
1996
$50,000
1997
100,000
1998
150,000
1999
150,000
2000
150,000
H-29
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Immigrant education
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
The Administration's fiscal year 2001 request for the Immigration Education program is
$150 million, the same as the 2000 level. The Department proposes to continue this level of
support for the program in response to evidence of the financial burden that educating
immigrant students places on school districts, particularly in the States where immigrants are
concentrated.
The Urban Institute documented in 1994 that the burden of educating immigrant students falls
disproportionately on seven States: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York
and Texas. In fiscal year 1999, these seven States received 74 percent of program funding.
Since State shares are calculated annually based on the reported numbers of eligible students,
the program responds immediately to changes in the distribution of recent immigrant students.
Program data for fiscal year 1999 show that the influx of eligible students into California is
declining, while the population in States such as Colorado, lowa, Nebraska, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington is growing rapidly.
SELECTED PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This section presents selected program performance information, including goals; indicators;
targets; and, where possible, an assessment of the progress made toward achieving program
results. Achievement of targets is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in
previous years and those requested in FY 2001 and future years, and the resources and efforts
invested by those served by this program.
Other performance data for this program are included in the Department's Annual Performance
Plan and Annual Program Performance Report.
Performance goal: Help offset cost of supplementary services to recent immigrant
students.
Objective: Provide financial assistance to schools that serve large numbers of recently
arrived immigrant students.
Indicator
1999
2000
2001
2002
90 percent of program funds will be used for direct
90%
90%
90%
90%
services to students.
FY 1996 baseline: 88.6 percent
H-30
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Bilingual education: Immigrant education
Baseline data are from biennial grantee reports. Data for future years will also be provided
through biennial reports. Data for school year 1997-98 will be available in June 2000.
The program statute allows school districts to use these funds for a variety of purposes
including overhead costs, construction, rental of space, and transportation. A 1991 report by
the General Accounting Office found that "most school districts receiving EIEA [Immigrant
Education] funds have a bilingual education program and most of these use EIEA funds for its
support." GAO found that these programs usually benefited all limited English proficient
students, not just recent immigrants. Consequently, it would be difficult or impossible to
develop an appropriate academic achievement indicator that measured the progress of
immigrant students who generate funds under this program.
PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES
1999
2000
2001
Number of States
and outlying areas
48
48
48
Number of students
808,391
808,391
808,391
Number of school districts
1,047
1,047
1,047
Per-pupil amount
$186
$186
$186
H-31
BILINGUAL AND IMMIGRANT EDUCATION
Immigrant Education -- Distribution of Budget Authority by State 1996-1999
State or
Outlying Area
1996
1997
1998
1999
Alabama
0
$200,965
$308,999
$528,086
Alaska
0
0
0
0
Arizona
$1,504,225
$3,189,935
$4,643,755
$4,780,793
Arkansas
0
0
0
$316,555
California
$14,366,920
$26,513,471
$38,894,464
$36,457,049
Colorado
$379,086
$734,576
$1,392,506
$1,605,597
Connecticut
$223,301
$469,971
$778,707
$837,404
Delaware
0
0
0
0
Florida
$5,582,933
$12,302,293
$19,298,576
$18,258,120
Georgia
$544,133
$1,246,185
$2,029,680
$2,544,684
Hawaii
$177,338
$302,970
$408,164
$445,144
Idaho
$210,724
$399,560
$508,059
$499,325
Illinois
$3,520,740
$7,128,325
$10,757,266
$10,612,562
Indiana
0
0
0
0
lowa
$138,920
$251,968
$626,765
$636,078
Kansas
$266,006
$555,164
$934,120
$1,209,439
Kentucky
0
$158,650
$296,033
$429,186
Louisiana
$142,865
$273,745
$429.714
$490,790
Maine
$25,326
$54,839
$89,120
$91,292
Maryland
$494,110
$1,103,444
$1,550,475
$1,775,935
Massachusetts
$1,070,028
$2,208,356
$3,264,581
$3,713,488
Michigan
$364,680
$748,794
$1,476,330
$1,337,472
Minnesota
$239,652
$507,208
$925,537
$1,148,392
Mississippi
0
0
0
0
Missouri
$136,062
$301,278
$538,923
$628,285
Montana
$10,919
$30,805
$37,803
$35,070
Nebraska
$135,490
$336,145
$494,910
$669,107
Nevada
$274,067
$719,456
$1,048,625
$1,170,659
New Hampshire
0
0
0
$121,909
New Jersey
$1,620,392
$3,306,948
$5,169,346
$5,574,035
New Mexico
$542,360
$924,822
$1,451,128
$1,428,764
New York
$8,571,432
$17,458,546
$23,956,028
$22,336,221
North Carolina
$16,350
$618,917
$1,093,185
$1,752,370
North Dakota
$20,752
$50,213
$88,938
$98,529
Ohio
$113,366
$206,042
$429,531
$450,339
Oklahoma
$106,162
$235,945
$390,632
$449,411
Oregon
$330,550
$720,697
$1,159,113
$1,170,659
Pennsylvania
$263,262
$429.575
$808,475
$867,278
Rhode Island
$530,469
$963,299
$1,540,613
$1,464,576
South Carolina
0
0
0
0
South Dakota
0
0
0
0
Tennessee
$124,571
$264,041
$517,556
$525,488
Texas
$4,798,463
$8,757,031
$11,881,680
$12,243,023
Utah
$490,508
$1,040,594
$2,141,993
$2,103,809
Vermont
$8,861
$23,583
$38,534
$51,398
Virginia
$628,285
$1,314,000
$2,170,665
$2,486,977
Washington
$961,808
$1,900,082
$3,132,544
$3,469,670
West Virginia
0
0
0
0
Wisconsin
$118,225
$281,644
$529.791
$539,776
Wyoming
0
0
0
0
District of Columbia
$192,545
$251,516
$456,742
$355,335
Puerto Rico
$207,237
$251,065
$426,609
$1,464,576
American Samoa
$93,871
$254,563
$177,328
$213,016
Guam
$248,170
$565,658
$919,328
$946,695
Virgin Islands
$97,873
$180,880
$370,726
$268,496
Northern Mariana Islands
$106,963
$218,680
$389,719
$317,483
Undistributed
0
0
$26,684
$2
TOTAL
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$150,000,000
H-32
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Divider Title:
Department of Education
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request
CONTENTS
Page
Appropriations language
I-1
Analysis of language provisions and changes
I-2
Amounts available for obligation
I-4
Obligations by object classification
I-5
Summary of changes
I-6
Authorizing legislation
I-8
Appropriations history
I-9
Significant items in FY 2000 appropriations reports
I-10
Summary of request
I-12
Activities:
State grants:
Grants to States
I-15
Preschool grants
I-26
Grants for infants and families
I-33
National activities:
State improvement
I-42
Research and innovation
I-50
Technical assistance and dissemination
I-58
Personnel preparation
I-67
Parent information centers
I-75
Technology and media services
I-81
State tables
I-88