The No Child Left Behind Act: An Overview of Reauthorization Issues for the 110th Congress








Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



Most programs of federal aid to K-12 education are authorized by the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). The ESEA was most recently amended and reauthorized by the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The authorization for ESEA programs expired at the end of
FY2008, although ESEA programs continue to operate as long as appropriations are provided, th
and the 111 Congress is expected to consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA.
Debates over reauthorization of the ESEA have thus far focused on the following overarching
issues: (1) What has been the impact of the substantial expansion of standards-based assessments
of pupil achievement required under the ESEA, and should these requirements be expanded
further to include additional subjects or grade levels? (2) Are adequate yearly progress (AYP)
requirements appropriately focused on improving education for disadvantaged pupil groups and
identifying low-performing schools? (3) Have the program improvement, corrective actions, and
restructuring required under the ESEA for schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) that fail
to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years or more been effectively implemented, and have
they significantly improved achievement levels among pupils in the affected schools? (4) What
has been the impact of the requirements that all public school teachers (and many
paraprofessionals) be highly qualified and that well-qualified teachers be equitably distributed
across schools and LEAs? (5) Should ESEA programs be funded at levels closer to the maximum
authorized amounts, and at what levels, if any, should authorizations be set for years beyond
FY2008? (6) Should the ESEA place greater emphasis on enhancing the nation’s international
competitiveness in science, mathematics, and foreign language achievement? (7) The NCLB,
with its numerous new or substantially expanded requirements for participating states and LEAs,
initiated a major increase in federal involvement in basic aspects of public K-12 education.
Should the active federal role in K-12 education embodied in the NCLB be maintained?
This report will be updated regularly.






Assessments..................................................................................................................................... 1
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding Assessments.........................................................3
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)....................................................................................................4
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding Adequate Yearly Progress Requirements............7
Performance-Based Sanctions.........................................................................................................9
School Improvement and Corrective Actions.........................................................................10
LEA Improvement and Corrective Actions.............................................................................12
Differentiated Accountability Pilot...................................................................................13
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding Performance-Based Sanctions...........................13
Staff Qualifications........................................................................................................................14
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding Staff Qualification Requirements......................16
Funding Levels..............................................................................................................................18
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding NCLB Funding Levels......................................21
International Competitiveness.......................................................................................................21
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding International Competitiveness...........................23
Federal Role..................................................................................................................................24
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding the Federal Role in K-12 Education..................26
Table 1. Authorizations and Appropriations for ESEA Programs, FY2001-FY2008...................19
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................27





Most programs of federal aid to K-12 education are authorized by the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). The ESEA was most recently amended and reauthorized by the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110). The authorization for ESEA programs expired at
the end of FY2008, although ESEA programs continue to operate as long as appropriations are th
provided, and the 111 Congress is expected to consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA.
Debates over reauthorization of the ESEA have thus far focused on the following overarching
issues: (1) What has been the impact of the substantial expansion of standards-based assessments
of pupil achievement required under the ESEA, and should these requirements be expanded
further to include additional subjects or grade levels? (2) Are adequate yearly progress (AYP)
requirements appropriately focused on improving education for disadvantaged pupil groups and
identifying low-performing schools? (3) Have the program improvement, corrective actions, and
restructuring required under the ESEA for schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) that fail
to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years or more been effectively implemented, and have
they significantly improved achievement levels among pupils in the affected schools? (4) What
has been the impact of the requirements that all public school teachers (and many
paraprofessionals) be highly qualified and that well-qualified teachers be equitably distributed
across schools and LEAs? (5) Should ESEA programs be funded at levels closer to the maximum
authorized amounts, and at what levels, if any, should authorizations be set for years beyond
FY2008? (6) Should the ESEA place greater emphasis on enhancing the nation’s international
competitiveness in science, mathematics, and foreign language achievement? (7) The NCLB,
with its numerous new or substantially expanded requirements for participating states and LEAs,
initiated a major increase in federal involvement in basic aspects of public K-12 education.
Should the active federal role in K-12 education embodied in the NCLB be maintained?
Each of these issues is discussed in turn below. These discussions are brief, and are intended
primarily as an introduction to other CRS reports (referenced below) that provide much more
detailed discussions and analyses of these broad issues.

• What has been the impact of the substantial expansion of standards-based
assessments of pupil achievement required under the ESEA, and should these
requirements be expanded further to include additional subjects and/or grade
levels (especially for senior high school pupils)?
The current generation of pupil assessment requirements under ESEA Title I-A began with the
Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 (P.L. 103-382), that required participating
states to develop or adopt curriculum content standards, pupil performance standards, and
assessments linked to these, at least in the subjects of mathematics and reading/English language 1
arts, and for at least one grade in each of three grade ranges (grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12). The
NCLB substantially expanded these requirements to provide that all participating states are to
implement assessments, linked to state content and academic achievement standards, for all

1 For additional information on this topic, see CRS Report RL31407, Educational Testing: Implementation of ESEA
Title I-A Requirements Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle, and CRS Report RL33731,
Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by
Wayne C. Riddle.





public school pupils in each of grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics by the end of the 2005-

2006 school year. Participating states were also required to develop and implement assessments at 2


three grade levels in science by the 2007-2008 school year. Assessment results must be provided
to LEAs, schools, and teachers before the beginning of the subsequent school year, so that they
might be available in a timely manner to make adequate yearly progress determinations for
schools and LEAs (see the following section of this report).
The primary rationale for requiring annual administration of standards-based tests in each of
grades 3-8 is that the provision of timely information on the performance of pupils, schools, and
LEAs throughout most of the elementary and middle school grades is of value for both diagnostic
and accountability purposes. Arguably, such assessment results will improve the quality of the
AYP determinations that are based primarily on the assessments, and help determine whether
Title I-A is meeting its primary goals, such as reducing achievement gaps between disadvantaged
and other pupils.
Achievement standards associated with the required assessments must establish at least three
performance levels for all pupils—advanced, proficient, and basic (or partially proficient). State
educational agencies (SEAs) must provide evidence from a test publisher or other relevant source 3
that their assessments are of adequate technical quality for the purposes required under Title I-A.
The ESEA authorizes (in Title VI-A-1) annual grants to the states to help pay the costs of meeting
the Title I-A standard and assessment requirements. States and LEAs participating in Title I-A
must report assessment results and certain other data to parents and the public through “report
cards.” States are to publish report cards for the state overall, and LEAs are to publish report
cards for the LEA overall and for individual schools. The report cards must generally include
information on pupils’ academic performance disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and gender, as
well as disability, migrant, English proficiency, and economic disadvantage status.
In addition to these state assessment requirements, the NCLB requires all states participating in thth
Title I-A to participate in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests in 4 and 8
grade reading and mathematics, which are administered every two years. Before enactment of the
NCLB, participation in NAEP was voluntary for states. NAEP is administered by the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), with oversight and several aspects of policy established
by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). The main NAEP assessment reports pupil
scores in relation to performance levels based on determinations by NAGB of what pupils should
know and be able to do at basic, proficient, and advanced levels with respect to challenging
subject matter.
NAEP tests are administered to only a representative sample of pupils enrolled in public and
private K-12 schools, and the tests are designed so that no pupil takes an entire NAEP test. While

2 If no agency or entity in a state has authority to establish statewide standards or assessments (as is apparently the case
for Iowa and possibly Nebraska), then the state may adopt either (a) statewide standards and assessments applicable
only to Title I-A pupils and programs, or (b) a policy providing that each LEA receiving Title I-A grants will adopt
standards and assessments that meet the requirements of Title I-A and are applicable to all pupils served by each such
LEA.
3 Several statutory constraints have been placed on the authority of the U.S. Secretary of Education to enforce these
standard and assessment requirements, including a provision that nothing in Title I of the ESEA shall be construed to
authorize any federal official or agency tomandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or schools
specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction
(Sections 1905, 9526, and 9527).





NAEP cannot currently provide assessment results for individual pupils, schools, or most LEAs, thth
NAEP conducts assessments in 4 and 8 grade mathematics, reading, and science at the state
level as well as for selected major cities. Under state NAEP, the sample of pupils tested is
increased in order to provide reliable estimates of achievement scores for pupils in each
participating state. An implicit purpose of this requirement is to confirm trends in pupil
achievement, as measured by state-selected assessments, although such confirmation is limited
and indirect, usually limited to comparisons of the percentage of pupils at various achievement
levels on NAEP and state tests.

Issues regarding the expanded ESEA Title I-A pupil assessment requirements include the
following:
• When will states implement math and reading assessments in each of grades 3-8?
What will be the consequences for states that did not meet the deadline of the end
of the 2005-2006 school year? Most states did not meet this deadline. As of the
publication date of this report, the assessment programs of only 27 states have
been fully approved. In recent years, a number of states have experienced the loss
of a portion of their Title I-A state administration grants for failure to implement
required assessments on schedule.
• Should requirements for standards-based assessments in states participating in
ESEA Title I-A be expanded for senior high school students? As discussed above,
the current assessment requirements are focused primarily, although not solely,
on the elementary and middle school grades. Proposals have been offered to
expand required assessments for pupils in grades 10-12 , including required state th
participation in a 12 grade NAEP assessment, in part to strengthen the process
of determining adequate yearly progress for senior high schools. However, the
substantial variation in senior high school instructional programs raises many
issues, including the following: Might the required assessments include high
school exit or graduation tests? Given the relatively high degree of curriculum
differentiation at the senior high school level (e.g., career and technical education
programs, college preparation programs, and so forth) might states be allowed to
meet these requirements by adopting different types of tests for pupils in different
types of academic programs? Is it appropriate to allow states to meet current or
future high school assessment requirements through end-of-course tests that are
different for students taking different courses? Might Advanced Placement or
International Baccalaureate tests be used to meet the new assessment
requirements for pupils participating in those programs?
• Has the emphasis on reading and mathematics in the Title I-A assessment and
adequate yearly progress requirements (see below) begun to “crowd out” the
amount of time and attention devoted to other subjects, such as writing, science,
history, civics, or foreign languages? Concern has been expressed by some, and

4 For additional information on possible reauthorization issues regarding pupil assessments under the NCLB, see CRS
Report RL31407, Educational Testing: Implementation of ESEA Title I-A Requirements Under the No Child Left
Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle, and CRS Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues
for ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.





there is some evidence,5 that the emphasis placed on reading and mathematics
(and, to a much more limited degree, science) through the Title I-A assessment
and adequate yearly progress requirements has reduced time and energy devoted
to other subject areas for many students. This might lead to proposals to either
de-emphasize the current requirements, or to expand the assessment requirements
to include more subjects in more grades.
• Should “national standards” of pupil performance be incorporated in some
fashion into the assessment process, as a way of addressing substantial
differences in state performance standards? Curriculum content and pupil
performance standards are determined at the discretion of the states, and there
appear to be very substantial differences in the degree of challenge embodied
particularly in the pupil performance standards. Some have called for a more
explicit role for “national standards,” either as embodied in NAEP or in some
other fashion, in the NCLB outcome accountability process, to more directly
address national concerns about educational quality, and establish greater 6
consistency in outcome accountability policies across the nation. Others believe
that in our federal system, where state and local governments pay a very large
majority of educational costs and have more explicit constitutional authority to
set educational standards, such basic matters of education policy should continue
to be left to state discretion. They further argue that states can continue to
successfully implement the detailed and challenging federal requirements
regarding adequate yearly progress (see below) only if allowed to establish their
own standards for pupil performance.

• Are adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements appropriately focused on
improving education for disadvantaged pupil groups and identifying low-
performing schools?
A key concept embodied in the outcome accountability requirements of the ESEA is that of 7
adequate yearly progress (AYP) for schools, LEAs, and (with much less emphasis) states overall.
The primary purpose of AYP requirements is to serve as the basis for identifying schools and
LEAs where performance is inadequate, so that these inadequacies may be addressed, first
through provision of increased support and opportunities for families to exercise choice to
transfer to another school or obtain supplemental educational services from a third-party provider,
and ultimately through a series of more substantial consequences (described in a later section of
this report). These actions are to be taken with respect to schools or LEAs that fail to meet AYP
for two consecutive years or more.

5 Center on Education Policy, “Choices, Changes, and Challenges: Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB Era,” July
2007, available at http://www.cep-dc.org.
6 For example, see “To Dream the Impossible Dream: Four Approaches to National Standards and Tests for America’s
Schools,” by Chester E. Finn, Jr. et al., Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 2006, available at
http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/National%20Standards%20Final%20PDF.pdf.
7 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RL32495, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of
the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle, and CRS Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged:
Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.





AYP standards under the NCLB must be applied to all public schools, LEAs, and to states
overall, if a state chooses to receive Title I-A grants. However, consequences for failing to meet
AYP standards for two consecutive years or more (as discussed later in this report) need only be 8
applied to schools and LEAs participating in Title I-A, and there are no sanctions for states
overall beyond potential identification and the provision of technical assistance.
Under the NCLB, AYP is defined primarily on the basis of multiple aggregations of pupil scores 9
on required state assessments of academic achievement in mathematics and reading, with a
specific focus on the percentage of pupils scoring at a proficient or higher level, based on state-
determined achievement standards. State AYP standards must also include at least one “additional
academic indicator.” In the case of high schools, this additional indicator must be the graduation
rate; for elementary and middle schools, the attendance rate is often selected by states to be the
additional indicator. The additional indicators may not be employed in a way that would reduce
the number of schools or LEAs identified as failing to meet AYP standards.
In addition, AYP calculations based on assessment scores must be disaggregated; that is, they
must be determined separately and specifically not only for all pupils but also for several
demographic groups of pupils within each school, LEA, and state. The specified demographic
groups (often referred to as subgroups), in addition to the “all pupils” group, are economically
disadvantaged pupils, limited English proficient (LEP) pupils, pupils with disabilities, and pupils
in major racial and ethnic groups.
However, there are three major constraints on the consideration of these pupil groups in AYP
calculations. First, pupil groups need not be considered in cases where their number is so
relatively small that achievement results would not be statistically significant or the identity of
individual pupils might be divulged. The selection of the minimum number (“n”) of pupils in a
group for the group to be considered in AYP determinations has been left largely to state
discretion, and state policies regarding “n” have varied widely. Since the same minimum group
size policies are applied to schools and to LEAs overall, groups that are too small to be separately
considered for individual schools often meet the minimum group size threshold at the LEA level.
Second, it has been left to the states to define the “major racial and ethnic groups” on the basis of
which AYP must be calculated. And third, pupils who have not attended the same school for a full
year need not be considered in determining AYP at the school level, although they are still to be
included in LEA and state AYP determinations, if they attended schools in the same LEA or state
for the full academic year. A number of special rules, which have evolved over time, apply to two 10
of the disaggregated pupil groups: LEP pupils and pupils with disabilities.
Many states have used the statistical technique of confidence intervals in an attempt to improve
the validity and reliability of AYP determinations, with an effect of substantially reducing the

8 States are encouraged to apply these consequences to all public schools and LEAs, but are not required to do so. State
practices vary on this point.
9 As noted earlier, the NCLB requires states participating in Title I-A to administer standards-based assessments in
science at 3 grade levels by the end of the 2007-2008 school year. Although statutory provisions are somewhat
ambiguous on this point, states are not required, under current Department of Education policy, to incorporate results
from these science assessments into their AYP determinations.
10 For a detailed discussion of these, see CRS Report RL32495, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of
the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle, and CRS Report RL32913, The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA): Interactions with Selected Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), by Richard N.
Apling and Nancy Lee Jones.





number of schools or LEAs identified as failing to meet AYP standards. Use of this statistical
technique is not explicitly authorized by the NCLB, but its inclusion in state accountability plans
has been approved by ED. This concept is based on the assumption that any test administration
represents a “sample survey” of pupils’ educational achievement level, as well as the school’s or
LEA’s performance over time. As with all sample surveys, there is a degree of uncertainty
regarding how well the sample results—average test scores for the pupil group—reflect pupils’
actual level of achievement. In practice, “confidence intervals” may be seen as “windows”
surrounding a threshold test score level (i.e., the percentage of pupils at the proficient or higher
level required under the state’s AYP standards). The size of the window varies with respect to the
number of pupils in the relevant group who are tested, and with the desired degree of probability
that the group’s average score represents their true level of achievement. If all other relevant
factors are equal, the smaller the pupil group, and the higher the desired degree of probability
(e.g., 99% as opposed to 95%), the larger is the window surrounding the threshold percentage. A
school would fail to make AYP with respect to a pupil group only if the average score for the
group is below the lowest score in the “window.”
State AYP standards must incorporate concrete movement toward meeting an ultimate goal of all
pupils reaching a proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-2014 school
year. This was adopted in response to pre-NCLB AYP requirements in most states that required
little or no net improvement in pupil performance over time.
The NCLB AYP provisions include an assessment participation rate requirement—at least 95% of
all pupils, as well as at least 95% of each of the demographic groups of pupils considered for AYP
determinations for the school or LEA, must participate in each of the assessments that serve as
the basis for AYP calculations. The participation rate requirement was adopted in part to minimize
opportunities for schools or LEAs to raise their test scores by discouraging pupils from
participating in the tests.
The primary basic structure for AYP determinations under the NCLB is specified in the
authorizing statute as a group status model, with a required threshold level of achievement that is 11
the same for all pupil groups, schools, and LEAs statewide in a given subject and grade level. A
“uniform bar” approach is employed: states are to set a threshold percentage of pupils at
proficient or higher levels each year that is applicable to all pupil subgroups of sufficient size to
be considered in AYP determinations. In addition, the NCLB statute includes a Safe Harbor
provision, under which a school that does not meet the standard AYP requirements may still be
deemed to meet AYP if it experiences a 10% reduction in the gap between 100% and the percent
proficient or above in the preceding year for the specific pupil groups that fail to meet the
“uniform bar,” and those pupil groups make progress on at least one other academic indicator
included in the state’s AYP standards.
Another basic type of AYP model, the individual/cohort growth model, in which the achievement
of the same pupils is tracked from year-to-year, is not explicitly mentioned in the NCLB statute.
However, under an ED initiative, all states may be allowed to use growth models. To date, eleven
states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina,
Ohio, and Tennessee) have been approved to use growth models.

11 For a discussion of the models of AYP, see CRS Report RL33032, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models
Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.





Schools or LEAs meet AYP standards only if they meet the required threshold levels of
performance on assessments, other academic indicators, and test participation with respect to all
of the designated pupil groups that meet the minimum group size criterion, as well as the “all
pupils” group.
Available data on the impact of the NCLB’s AYP provisions during the latest year for which
complete data are available (school year 2006-2007), may be summarized as follows:
• The percentage of all public schools failing to meet AYP standards for one or
more years was approximately 28% of all public schools. The percentage of
public schools failing to make adequate yearly progress for 2006-2007 varied
widely among the states, from 4% for Wisconsin and 9% for Louisiana to 86%
for the District of Columbia and 71% for Florida. These variations appear to be
based, at least in part, not only on underlying differences in achievement levels
but also on differences in the degree of rigor or challenge in state pupil
performance standards, and on variations in state-determined policies on
minimum group size.
• ED, in its “National Assessment of Title I: Final Report,” published in October
2007, reported that 11,648 public schools, including 9,808 Title I-A schools, were
identified for improvement during the 2005-2006 school year, on the basis of
assessment results through the 2004-2005 school year. These constituted 12% of
all public schools or 18% of all Title I-A schools. Schools most likely to be
identified were those in large, urban LEAs, schools with high pupil poverty rates,
and schools with large minority enrollment. The percentage of both all and of
Title I-A schools identified varied widely among the states, from less than 1% (of
all)/1% (of Title I-A) schools in Nebraska to more than 40% of all schools in
Hawaii, New Mexico, and Puerto Rico, or more than 50% of all Title I-A schools
in Florida, New Mexico, and Puerto Rico.
• Approximately 30% of all LEAs failed to meet AYP standards for one or more
years. Among the states, there was even greater variation for LEAs than for
schools. Two states—Alabama and Michigan—reported that none of their LEAs
failed to make adequate yearly progress, and Wisconsin reported that only two of
the state’s 426 LEAs failed to make AYP, while 100% of the LEAs in Florida and
South Carolina, plus the single, statewide LEA in Hawaii, failed to meet AYP
standards. The percentage of all LEAs failing to meet AYP standards for 2
consecutive years or more, resulting in their being identified as in need of
improvement as of 2005-2006, was approximately 10%.

Issues regarding the ESEA Title I-A AYP requirements include the following:

12 For additional information on possible reauthorization issues regarding AYP under the NCLB, see CRS Report
RL32495, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle, and
CRS Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No
Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.





• Are the current AYP requirements so detailed and rigid that “too many” schools
and LEAs are failing to meet them, especially those with diverse pupil
populations? Substantial percentages of public schools and LEAs overall have
already failed to meet state AYP standards. Morever, future increases in
performance thresholds, as the ultimate goal of having all pupils at the proficient
or higher level of achievement is approached, may result in higher percentages of
schools and LEAs failing to make AYP. ED officials have emphasized the
importance of taking action to identify and improve underperforming schools, no
matter how numerous. Without specific requirements for achievement gains by
each of the major pupil groups, it is possible that insufficient attention would be
paid to the performance of the disadvantaged pupil groups among whom
improvements are most needed, and for whose benefit the Title I-A program was
established. Others have consistently expressed concern about the accuracy,
efficacy, and complexity of an accountability system under which such a
relatively high percentage of schools is identified as failing to make adequate
progress, with consequent strain on resources to provide technical assistance and
implement program improvement, corrective actions, and restructuring. Further, a
number of studies have concluded that, when comparing otherwise similar public
schools, those with a wider variety of demographic groups are substantially less
likely to meet AYP standards.
• Should states be allowed greater flexibility in the models of AYP they implement
to meet the NCLB requirements? Although ED has lifted the limit on use of
growth models for AYP, the conditions established by ED are somewhat
restrictive, and almost all of the “growth models” initially approved are relatively
limited, essentially adding a projected achievement level option to the standard
AYP model of the NCLB. The ESEA might be modified to allow states to use a
wider range of growth and other models of AYP.
• Should AYP determinations retain their current “pass-fail” structure, or should
states be allowed to use a more varied, graduated rating scale? Under current law
and policy, schools, LEAs, and states simply do or do not meet AYP standards,
and there is generally no distinction between those that fail to meet only one or
two required performance or participation thresholds to a marginal degree versus
those that fail to meet numerous thresholds to a substantial extent. Several
analysts have suggested that a more nuanced grading scale be allowed (e.g., a
division of schools or LEAs failing to make AYP into higher versus lower
priority categories, or grades ranging from A to F), as is used in several state
accountability systems. A major complication is determining at what point on
such a scale the current “automatic” consequences (e.g., school choice or
supplemental services, discussed below) are invoked.
• Is the flexibility allowed to states and LEAs with respect to minimum group sizes
and use of confidence intervals making it “too easy” for many schools and LEAs
to meet AYP standards and resulting in the achievement of too many
disadvantaged pupils not being specifically considered, especially at the school
level? Extensive use by states of these forms of flexibility could make the Title I-
A AYP requirements substantially less challenging, and significantly reduce their
focus on disadvantaged pupil groups. Consideration might be given to setting
maximum levels for state group size and confidence interval policies.





• Should at least some states be allowed to determine AYP using “multiple
indicators,” placing less emphasis on reading and math assessment scores? Many
educators object to the almost exclusive use of reading and math test scores to
determine whether schools or LEAs make AYP. While acknowledging that such
scores are a basic facet of school system effectiveness, they argue that such other
important criteria as scores on assessments in additional subjects, the percentage
of pupils scoring at levels above proficient (i.e., advanced), or the share of pupils
taking and passing advanced courses should also be taken into consideration.
Opponents of such proposals argue that “multiple indicators” concepts are
sometimes ambiguous or complex and that the dominant focus should remain on
math and reading test scores.
• Do AYP requirements embody appropriately challenging—or unrealistic—
expectations that all pupils will perform at a proficient or higher level by 2014?
Without an ultimate goal of having all pupils reach a proficient or higher level of
achievement by a specific date, states might establish relative goals that require
little or no net improvement over time. A demanding goal might maximize efforts
toward improvement by state public school systems, even if the goal is not met.
Nevertheless, a goal of having all pupils at a proficient or higher level of
achievement, within any specified period of time, may be criticized as being
unrealistic, if one assumes that proficiency has been established at a challenging
level. It is likely that many states, schools, and LEAs will not meet the NCLB’s
2014 AYP goal, unless state standards of proficient performance are significantly
lowered or states are allowed by ED to aggressively pursue the use of statistical
techniques such as setting high minimum group sizes and confidence intervals.

• Have the program improvement, corrective actions, and restructuring required
under the ESEA for schools and LEAs that fail to meet AYP standards for two
consecutive years or more been effectively implemented, and have they
significantly improved achievement levels among pupils in the affected schools?
The NCLB requires states to identify LEAs, and LEAs to identify schools, that fail to meet state
AYP standards for two consecutive years for program improvement, and to take a variety of
further actions with respect to schools or LEAs that fail to meet AYP standards for additional 13
years after being identified for improvement. Although states are encouraged to establish unitary
accountability systems affecting all public schools, and some states do so to varying degrees, the
Title I-A statute requires them only to apply these sanctions to schools and LEAs that receive Title 14
I-A funds, not all schools and LEAs.

13 For further information on this topic, see CRS Report RL33371, K-12 Education: Implementation Status of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), by Gail McCallion et al..
14 Over 90% of all LEAs, and approximately three-fifths of all public schools, participate in the Title I-A program.





Title I-A schools that fail to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years must be identified for
program improvement. Once so identified, a school remains in “needs improvement” status until 15
it meets AYP standards for two consecutive years. At this and every subsequent stage of the
program improvement and corrective action process, the LEA and/or SEA are to arrange for
technical assistance, “based on scientifically based research” (Section 1116(b)(4)(c), to be
provided to the school. Funding for this purpose is provided in part through a state reservation of 16

4% of total Title I-A grants for school improvement activities, as well as a separate 17


authorization for additional funds. Parents of pupils in these schools are to be notified of the
school’s identification as needing improvement.
Pupils attending schools that have failed to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years or
more must be provided with options to attend other public schools that have not been designated 18
as needing improvement or as being unsafe. Public school choice must be offered to such pupils
by the next school year (unless prohibited by state law). LEAs are generally required only to offer
public school choice options within the same LEA; however, if all public schools in the LEA to
which a child might transfer have been identified as needing improvement, then LEAs “shall, to
the extent practicable,” establish cooperative agreements with other LEAs to offer expanded 19
public school choice options. Transportation must be provided to pupils utilizing public school
choice options. Children who transfer to other public schools under this authority are to be
allowed to remain in the school to which they transfer until they complete the highest grade in
that school; however, the LEA is no longer required to provide transportation services if the
originating school meets AYP standards for two consecutive years.
If a Title I-A school fails to meet AYP standards for a third year, pupils from low-income families
in the school must be offered the opportunity to receive instruction from a supplemental services 2021
provider of their choice, in addition to continuing to be offered public school choice options.
States are to identify and provide lists of approved providers of such supplemental instructional
services—which might include public or private schools, LEAs, commercial firms, or other
organizations—and monitor the quality of the services they provide. The amount spent per child

15 If a school that has been identified for improvement meets AYP standards for one year (only), then implementation
of subsequent stages of corrective action or restructuring (described below) may be delayed for one year.
16 No LEA is to receive less than its previous year Title I-A grant as a result of implementing this reservation. Due to
this requirement, it is likely that some states have been unable to reserve the full 4% in some recent years, due to flat or
declining Title I-A grants statewide.
17 No funds were appropriated under this authority for FY2002-FY2006. However, for FY2007, $125 million was
appropriated under this authority, and $491.3 million was appropriated for FY2008 under the Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161).
18 On this and other school choice provisions and issues, see also CRS Report RL33506, School Choice Under the
ESEA: Programs and Requirements, by David P. Smole.
19 If a LEA is unable to offer public school choice options to eligible pupils, it may offer supplemental services options,
as described below.
20 For a more thorough discussion and analysis of this provision and related issues, see CRS Report RL31329,
Supplemental Educational Services for Children from Low-Income Families Under ESEA Title I-A, by David P. Smole.
21 A limited number of states and LEAs have been allowed by ED to reverse the order for introducing public school
choice and supplemental services—that is, to offer supplemental services after two years of failing to meet AYP
standards, and school choice after a third year. In addition, the requirement to provide supplemental services may be
waived if none of the approved providers in the state offers such services in or near a LEA, and the LEA itself is unable
to provide such services.





for supplemental services is to be the lesser of the actual cost of the services or the LEA’s Title I-
A grant per child (from a poor family) included in the national allocation formula (approximately
$1,400 on average for FY2008, although this amount will vary substantially in different states and
LEAs).
LEAs are to use funds equal to as much as 20%22 of their Title I-A grants for transportation of
pupils exercising public school choice options plus supplemental services costs (combined),
although the grant to any particular school identified for improvement, corrective action, or 23
restructuring may not be reduced by more than 15% in order to provide these funds. If
insufficient funds are available to pay the costs of supplemental services for all eligible pupils
whose families wish to exercise this option, LEAs may focus services on the lowest-achieving
eligible pupils.
According to the report, “National Assessment of Title I: Final Report,” published by ED in 2007,
approximately 1% of pupils eligible for public school choice, and 19% of those eligible for
supplemental services, in the 2004-2005 school year actually participated in these activities. It is
unclear whether such low participation rates in most states, if continuing into the present, result
from low levels of parental interest, inadequate dissemination of information about the options to
parents, limited availability of alternative public schools or tutorial services, or other factors.
One or more “corrective actions” must be taken with respect to Title I-A schools that fail to meet
AYP for a fourth year. These “corrective actions” include replacing relevant school staff;
implementing a new curriculum; decreasing management authority at the school level; appointing
an outside expert to advise the school; extending the school day or year; or changing the
organizational structure of the school. Which of these specific actions is to be taken is left to state
or LEA discretion (or both).
Title I-A schools that fail to meet AYP standards for a fifth year must begin to plan for
“restructuring,” and those that fail to meet AYP requirements for a sixth year must implement
their restructuring plan. Such restructuring must consist of one or more of the “alternative
governance” actions: reopening as a charter school; replacing all or most school staff; state
takeover of school operations (if permitted under state law); or other “major restructuring” of
school governance. In September 2005, the Education Commission of the States (ECS) published
a report on actions taken in the 13 states where one or more schools reached this final stage of 24
school improvement in 2004-2005. In general, the authors of the ECS study concluded that (1)
SEAs vary widely in their involvement in the restructuring process; (2) in most cases, the
restructuring options applied to affected schools have been relatively mild to “moderate” (e.g.,

22 More specifically, LEAs are to use an amount equal to 5% of their Title I-A grant for public school choice
transportation costs, 5% for supplemental services, and up to an additional 10% for either, to the extent needed. These
funds may be taken from the LEAs Title I-A grant, or from other sources.
23 LEAs are also authorized to use any funds that might be available under the Innovative Programs block grant (ESEA
Title V-A) to pay additional supplemental services costs; states are authorized to use funds they reserve for program
improvement or administration under Title I-A, or funds available to them under Title V-A, to pay additional
supplemental services costs. However, these funds may be rather limited, as the FY2007 appropriation for all of ESEA
Title V-A was $99 million, and no funds were appropriated for FY2008. Finally, according to a 2004 report by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), approximately two-thirds of rural LEAs use some of their funds under the
Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP, ESEA ) to help pay costs of providing supplemental services. (GAO-
04-909, “No Child Left Behind Act, Additional Assistance and Research on Effective Strategies Would Help Small
Rural Districts,” p. 34.)
24 See http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/64/28/6428.pdf.





changing curriculum, implementing a school reform strategy, or altering the school’s management
structure) rather than “strong” (e.g., reconstituting or closing the school, or converting it to a
charter school); and (3) political difficulties have arisen in cases where stronger forms of
restructuring have been applied. In several states, some restructuring options could not be
implemented because they are not authorized under state law (e.g., charter schools).
Procedures analogous to those for schools apply to LEAs that receive Title I-A grants and fail to
meet AYP requirements. While states are encouraged to implement unitary accountability systems
applicable to all pupils and schools, states may choose to base decisions regarding LEA status and
corrective actions only on the Title I-A schools in each LEA. Further, as noted earlier,
identification as needing improvement and corrective actions need be taken only with respect to
LEAs that receive Title I-A grants, although this includes over 90% of all LEAs.
LEAs that fail to meet state AYP standards for two consecutive years are to be identified as
needing improvement. Technical assistance, “based on scientifically based research” (Section
1116(c)(9)(B)), is to be provided to the LEA by the SEA; and parents of pupils served by the LEA
are to be notified that it has been identified as needing improvement.
SEAs are to take corrective action with respect to LEAs that fail to meet state standards for a
fourth year (two years of failing to meet AYP standards after having been identified for
improvement without, in the meantime, meeting AYP standards for two consecutive years). Such
corrective action is to include at least one of the following (at SEA discretion): reducing
administrative funds or deferring program funds; implementing a new curriculum; replacing
relevant LEA staff; removing specific schools from the jurisdiction of the LEA; appointing a
receiver or trustee to administer the LEA; abolishing or restructuring the LEA; or authorizing
pupils to transfer to higher-performing schools in another LEA (and providing transportation) in
conjunction with at least one of these actions.
Finally, ED is required to establish a peer review process to evaluate whether states overall have
met their statewide AYP goals, beginning after the third year of implementation of the NCLB.
States that fail to meet their goals are to be listed in an annual report to Congress, and technical
assistance is to be provided to states that fail to meet their goals for two consecutive years or
more.
As noted in the previous section of this report, based on the latest available complete data, the
percentage of public schools failing to meet AYP standards for 2 consecutive years or more,
resulting (at least in the case of Title I-A participating schools) in their being identified as in need
of improvement, is approximately 12% of all public schools, or 20% of Title I-A participating
schools, while approximately 12% of all LEAs have been identified for improvement as a result
of failing to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years or more. As implementation of the
NCLB requirements continues, increasing percentages of schools and LEAs will likely face the
prescribed consequences of failing to meet AYP standards for three, four, five, six or more
cumulative years.
Finally, the NCLB has limited provisions regarding performance-based rewards for high-
performing schools and LEAs that participate in the Title I-A program. States are to establish
Academic Achievement Awards for schools that significantly reduce achievement gaps between
pupil groups or exceed AYP requirements for two or more consecutive years, and to LEAs that





exceed AYP requirements for two or more consecutive years. States may reserve up to 5% of their
annual Title I-A grants that is in excess of the state’s previous year’s allocation for this purpose,
but information on the extent to which states have actually reserved Title I-A funds for this
purpose is unavailable.
On March 18, 2008, the Bush Administration announced a pilot program under which the
Secretary of Education would grant waivers to up to 10 states proposing to implement alternative 25
NCLB accountability policies incorporating differentiated consequences. Under these policies,
states could distinguish among schools identified for improvement, focusing resources upon, and
applying the most significant consequences to, schools with the lowest performance levels. On
July 1, 2008, the Secretary of Education announced that an initial group of six states had been
approved to participate in the Differentiated Accountability Pilot program. The accountability
plans for the six states—Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Ohio—have three
characteristics in common. These are (1) identification of a highest priority group of schools
identified for improvement, focusing the most substantial consequences and improvement
resources on these schools; (2) some adjustment of the order or severity of consequences for
schools placed into different improvement categories; and (3) in many cases, narrowing of certain
consequences or actions to focus more specifically on pupil groups with the lowest levels of 26
performance.

Issues regarding performance-based sanctions under the NCLB include the following:
• Because the NCLB’s performance-based sanctions generally apply only to
schools that receive Title I-A grants, and few senior high schools participate in
Title I-A, should new mechanisms be adopted to increase accountability among
senior high schools? Concerns have been expressed that the assessment,
accountability, and performance-based sanctions of the NCLB have limited
impact on senior high schools. Without increased participation by high schools in
the Title I-A grant program, the application of performance-based sanctions to
high schools would not expand.
• With substantial numbers of public schools and LEAs identified as needing
improvement, and increasing numbers likely to be identified for corrective action
or restructuring as the 2013-2014 goal of all pupils at a proficient or higher level
of achievement approaches, will the ability of states and LEAs to provide
technical assistance, school choice and supplemental services options, and other
resources necessary for effective corrective action and restructuring become
increasingly limited? Although the NCLB generally provides for the reservation

25 See http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2008/03/03182008.html.
26 The state plans may be found at http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/differentiatedaccountability/index.html.
27 For additional information on this topic, see CRS Report RL33371, K-12 Education: Implementation Status of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), by Gail McCallion et al..





of 4% of ESEA Title I-A grants for school improvement grants, this may not be
sufficient to address the needs of the growing number of schools and LEAs
identified for improvement and subsequent sanctions. An additional $125 million
was separately appropriated for this purpose for FY2007, and $491.3 million was
provided for FY2008. Whatever the level of these grants, almost all of the funds
must be spent at a local level, and there are concerns regarding the capacity of
many state educational agencies to provide necessary guidance and technical
assistance for turning around low-performing schools.
• Why are relatively small percentages of eligible pupils taking advantage of the
supplemental services and, especially, the school choice options required under
the NCLB? Are the low levels of participation primarily the result of a lack of
meaningful options in many localities, of inadequate information dissemination
and promotion activities by schools and LEAs, funding limitations, lack of
parental interest, or other causes? Whatever the cause, how should this situation
be addressed?
• Have supplemental services provided by third parties been more effective than
conventional public school instruction? Available information on the
effectiveness of instruction by supplemental services providers, either
individually or in the aggregate, is highly limited. While some advocates appear
to believe that competition and choice will be sufficient assurances of quality,
others question how the impact of these services can be appropriately measured
and evaluated.
• Should there be more emphasis on rewards and other positive performance
incentives for LEAs and schools? While performance-based rewards are
authorized under the NCLB, they are apparently little used, and the current focus
is very much on a variety of sanctions.

• What has been the impact of the requirements that all public school teachers (and
many paraprofessionals) be highly qualified and that well-qualified teachers be
equitably distributed across schools and LEAs?
The NCLB established new requirements regarding teacher qualifications for all public schools in 28
states participating in ESEA Title I-A. The NCLB also expanded upon previous ESEA Title I-A
qualification requirements for teacher aides or paraprofessionals, although these provisions are
limited to most paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds.
First, the NCLB required LEAs participating in ESEA Title I-A to ensure that, beginning with the

2002-2003 school year, teachers newly hired with Title I-A funds were “highly qualified.”


Second, participating states were to develop and implement plans providing that all public school 29
teachers statewide in core academic subjects were “highly qualified” by the end of the 2005-

28 For additional information on this topic, see CRS Report RL33333, A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom:
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
29 Program regulations (Federal Register, December 2, 2002) define core subject areas as English, reading or language
(continued...)





2006 school year. However, the U.S. Secretary of Education stated that the 2005-2006 deadline
could be extended by one year (to the end of the 2006-2007 school year) for states that provided
evidence that they were making a “good faith effort” toward meeting the highly qualified teacher
(HQT) requirement. In a July 23, 2007, letter to chief state school officers, the Secretary of
Education stated that the plans for meeting the highly qualified teacher requirements of all states 30
except one had been approved. However, the Secretary also noted that on the basis of data
submitted by states in their Consolidated State Performance Reports for the 2005-2006 school
year, no state yet met the goal of having 100% of teachers highly qualified.
The criteria that teachers must meet in order to be deemed to be “highly qualified” include some
elements that are applicable to all public school teachers, and others that apply only to teachers
who either are, or are not, “new to the profession.” The criteria applicable to all public school
teachers are that they must hold at least a bachelor’s degree, must have obtained full state
certification or passed the state teacher licensing examination, and must hold a license to teach,
without any certification or licensure requirements having been waived for them. An exception is
made for teachers in public charter schools, who must meet the requirements established in the
state’s charter school law. Program regulations also provide that individuals participating in
alternate certification programs meeting certain requirements would be considered “highly
qualified” on a provisional basis and given three years to obtain the necessary credentials.
The additional criteria applicable to teachers who are new to the profession are that they must (a)
demonstrate, by passing a “rigorous” state test, subject area knowledge and teaching skills in
basic elementary curricula (if teaching at the elementary level); or (b) demonstrate “a high level
of competency” by passing a rigorous state academic test or completing an academic major (or
equivalent course work), graduate degree, or advanced certification in each subject taught (if
teaching at the middle or high school level).
Finally, a public school teacher at any elementary or secondary level who is not new to the
profession may be deemed to be “highly qualified” by either meeting the preceding criteria for a
teacher who is new to the profession, or by demonstrating competence in all subjects taught
“based on a high objective uniform State standard of evaluation” (HOUSSE) which is not based
primarily on the amount of time spent teaching each subject.
Special flexibility has been granted by ED to teachers in certain circumstances. For example,
teachers in small, rural LEAs who teach multiple subjects and are highly qualified in at least one
of those subjects were given an additional three years to meet the highly qualified requirements in
all core subjects they teach. In addition, science teachers may not need to be highly qualified in
each field of science they teach (e.g., biology, chemistry), depending on state certification policies 31
for such teachers. States have also been granted a degree of flexibility in treating middle school
teachers the same as other secondary school teachers (as provided under the statute) or as
elementary teachers.

(...continued)
arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography (34
C.F.R. § 200.55(c)).
30 See http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/070723.html.
31 For details, see CRS Report RL33333, A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom: Implementation of the No
Child Left Behind Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.





Paraprofessionals, also known as teacher aides, constitute approximately one-half of the staff
hired with ESEA Title I-A grants, and approximately 15% of Title I-A funds is used to pay their 32
salaries. The NCLB established requirements for paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds,
effective as of the end of the 2005-2006 school year. The affected paraprofessionals must have
either:
(a) completed at least two years of higher education; or
(b) earned an associate’s (or higher) degree; or
(c) met a “rigorous standard of quality,” established by their LEA, and “demonstrate, through a
formal State or local assessment ... knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, reading, 33
writing, and mathematics” or readiness to learn these subjects, as appropriate.
These requirements apply to all paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds except those engaged
in translation or parental involvement activities or other non-instructional services. Finally, all
paraprofessionals in Title I-A programs, regardless of duties, must have at least a high school
diploma or equivalent.
States and LEAs have adopted a wide variety of approaches to meeting these requirements.
According to the ECS, twelve states have established paraprofessional qualification requirements
that exceed those under the NCLB, and five states are applying their requirements to all
paraprofessionals, not just those providing instructional services in Title I-A programs. Eleven
states have established certification requirements for paraprofessionals (which is not specifically
required by the NCLB). Thirty-six states are using the “ParaPro” test published by the
Educational Testing Service (ETS) to assess paraprofessional qualifications, while 17 are using
the “WorkKeys” test published by the American College Testing Program (ACT), and 21 are
allowing LEAs to use tests of their choice (several states are following multiple approaches).
In addition, the types of responsibilities to which all paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds
may be assigned are outlined in the NCLB. These include tutoring of eligible pupils, assistance
with classroom management, parental involvement activities, translation, assistance in computer
laboratories or library/media centers, and instruction under the direct supervision of a teacher.

Issues regarding the ESEA Title I-A teacher and paraprofessional qualification requirements
include the following.

32 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RS22545, Paraprofessional Quality and the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, and CRS Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged:
Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.
33 Or reading readiness, writing readiness, or mathematics readiness, where appropriate (e.g., for paraprofessionals
serving preschool or early elementary pupils).
34 For additional information on possible reauthorization issues regarding staff qualification requirements under the
NCLB, see CRS Report RL33333, A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom: Implementation of the No Child
Left Behind Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.





• Are the special forms of flexibility given to small, rural schools and multi-subject
teachers justified, and are there other circumstances that warrant special
flexibility? Current flexibility has been focused on teachers in small, rural LEAs,
and it may be questioned whether this flexibility should be expanded to other
school settings. One general area of concern is middle schools. The NCLB
currently treats middle school teachers the same as those in high schools in
several respects, although many middle school teachers work in settings that are
more comparable to elementary schools. While ED has allowed a degree of
flexibility to states with respect to middle school teachers, the special role of
teachers at this level might be more explicitly recognized in reauthorization
proposals.
• Are these minimum qualification requirements reliable indicators of teacher
quality and effectiveness? The NCLB’s HQT requirements are closely linked to
state teacher certification requirements and, in the case of secondary school
teachers, attainment of baccalaureate or higher degrees with a major in the
subject(s) taught. While widely accepted as minimum qualifications, these are
not the only attributes closely associated with teacher effectiveness in improving 35
student achievement, nor do they address issues of instructional methods used
by teachers in the classroom. Further, there is evidence that a very large majority 36
of teachers already met the HQT requirements when the NCLB was enacted.
However, the characteristics often identified in research on teacher effectiveness
are much more difficult to measure and evaluate than the current HQT
requirements.
• Does the current statute give the U.S. Department of Education sufficient
authority to ensure an equitable distribution of teacher quality across schools and
LEAs? One issue regarding these NCLB staff qualification requirements is
whether high-poverty LEAs and schools will be able to meet the teacher
qualification requirements. Schools and LEAs disadvantaged by high pupil-
poverty rates have generally had particular difficulty attracting highly qualified 37
staff.
• Have the NCLB’s paraprofessional qualification requirements significantly
affected either the quality of these staff or the extent to which ESEA Title I-A
funds are used to employ them? The NCLB’s qualification requirements for
paraprofessionals performing instructional duties in Title I-A programs have
received much less attention from ED than the HQT requirements. States and
LEAs are responding to these requirements in widely varying ways. While
concern has been expressed that substantial numbers of paraprofessionals
previously employed in Title I-A programs would be unable to meet these
requirements, and might lose their jobs, there is not yet any systematic evidence
that this has occurred.

35 For example, several studies have found such characteristics as the selectivity of the institution of higher education
attended by a teacher, or his/her cognitive level as measured by achievement test scores, to be closely associated with
achievement test score gains by their pupils. See, for example, Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effectiveness of
Teacher Attributes, by Jennifer King Rice, Economic Policy Institute, 2003.
36 For details, see CRS Report RL33333, A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom: Implementation of the No
Child Left Behind Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
37 See, for example, The Education Trust, Honor in the Boxcar: Equalizing Teacher Quality, Spring 2000.






• Should ESEA programs be funded at levels closer to the maximum authorized
amounts, and at what levels, if any, should authorizations be set for years beyond
FY2008?
Both during its consideration, and especially after enactment, a great deal of the debate
surrounding the NCLB has been focused on the level of funding appropriated for ESEA
programs, particularly on funding trends over time and on differences between amounts
authorized and appropriated. Over the decades since enactment of the original ESEA in 1965, the
typical pattern of ESEA authorizing statutes has been to specify an authorized level of
appropriations only for the first year of the authorization period (if at all) for most ESEA 38
programs, and to simply authorize “such sums as may be necessary” for the remaining years.
The NCLB broke with this pattern, but only with respect to five of the 45 separately authorized
ESEA programs (plus approximately 20 specified subprograms). However, one of the five
programs is the largest federal K-12 education program, for which approximately one-half of all
ESEA funding is appropriated and to which most of the major ESEA requirements are linked:
Education for the Disadvantaged under ESEA Title I, Part A. Thus, the following discussion will
focus on (1) the ESEA overall, (2) the group of ESEA programs with specified authorization
levels, and (3) Title I-A in particular.
Table 1, below, provides appropriations for FY2001-FY2008 compared to authorization levels,
where available, for three groups of ESEA programs: (1) Title I-A only; (2) all ESEA programs
for which an authorization level is specified in the ESEA for that year (i.e., no programs for the
pre-NCLB year of FY2001, almost all ESEA programs for FY2002, and five programs only for
FY2003-FY2008), including Title I-A; and (3) all ESEA programs (appropriations only for
FY2001-FY2008, because there is no recent year for which authorization levels are specified for
every ESEA program). Under the automatic extension provisions for the General Education
Provisions Act, ESEA authorization levels for FY2008 are the same as the FY2007 levels. The
FY2008 appropriations levels in Table 1 are the amounts provided under P.L. 110-161, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008. For FY2009, funding is currently being provided
under a continuing resolution at the same level as for FY2008.
As noted above, the only year for which authorization amounts were specified under the NCLB
for almost all ESEA programs was the first year of the current authorization period, FY2002. For
that year, as indicated in Table 1, the total amount authorized for all ESEA programs with
specified authorization levels was $26,347 million, and the appropriation for these programs was
$20,003 million. The grand total ESEA appropriation for FY2002 was $21,954 million. For
ESEA Title I-A specifically, the authorization was $13,500 million, and the appropriation was
$10,350 million.
These FY2002 appropriation levels represented substantial increases over the FY2001 level for
the ESEA overall (+19.0%) and for Title I-A (+17.0%). Appropriations also increased

38 For the largest ESEA programTitle I, Part Amany program advocates have argued that thefull funding level
should be based on maximum payment calculations under the Basic Grant allocation formula, even in years when no
authorization level was explicitly specified. The Title I-A Basic Grant formula establishes a maximum payment based
on poor and other “formula children” multiplied by a state expenditure factor. The total of these maximum payments is
understood by a number of analysts to represent thefull funding level for Part A. For FY2008, this amount would be
approximately $33.2 billion.





significantly for FY2003 compared to FY2002, although less so for the ESEA overall (+7.5%)
than for Title I-A (+14.0%). Appropriations continued to increase at a declining rate for FY2004
compared to FY2003 (+3.8% for the ESEA overall and +5.6% for Title I-A). Funding was
essentially flat over the period of FY2004-FY2007 for the ESEA overall and Title I-A in
particular. Finally, for FY2008, funding for Title I-A increased by 8.3% and for the ESEA overall
by 4.0%.
Another trend is that over the period of FY2002-FY2007, appropriations represented a decreasing
share of authorizations for those ESEA programs with specified authorization levels, although
these proportions rose somewhat in FY2008. For FY2002, the first year under the NCLB,
appropriations were 76% of the amount authorized both for the ESEA overall and for Title I-A.
By FY2007, the appropriations represented 50% of the authorized level for all ESEA programs
with specified authorizations, and 51% of the Title I-A authorization. For FY2008, these
proportions rose to 54% and 57%, respectively.
Table 1. Authorizations and Appropriations for ESEA Programs,
FY2001-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
ESEA Title I-A All ESEA Programs for Which All ESEA
Authorization Levels Are Specified for the Programs
Indicated Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Approp. Auth. Approp. as a % of Auth. Approp. Auth. Approp. as a % of Auth. Approp.
2001 8,763 na na na na na 18,442
2002 10,250 13,500 76% 20,003 26,347 76% 21,954
2003 11,689 16,000 73% 13,901 18,650 75% 23,610
2004 12,342 18,500 67% 14,435 21,450 67% 24,275
2005 12,740 20,500 62% 14,631 23,750 62% 24,352
2006 12,713 22,750 56% 14,331 26,300 54% 23,332
2007 12,838 25,000 51% 14,358 28,875 50% 23,487
2008 13,899 25,000 57% 15,616 28,875 54% 24,417
Source: Table Prepared by CRS.
A less concrete issue is the question of whether ESEA funding has increased sufficiently since
FY2001 to pay the increased costs incurred by states and LEAs of meeting the expanded
programmatic requirements included in the NCLB. It is likely that no definitive answer to this
question will ever be available, but a brief evaluation of the issue is worthwhile, if only to
enhance one’s understanding of the meaning of the question.
There are varying contexts in which both the costs and the benefits of NCLB participation by
states and LEAs may be evaluated. First, are the “costs” to be defined relatively narrowly—that
is, including only the direct costs of meeting such specific requirements as the development and
administration of standards-based assessments of reading and mathematics achievement to public
school pupils in each of grades 3-8, plus science assessments at 3 grade levels? Alternatively, are
the “costs” to be defined more broadly, to include, for example, all estimated costs associated
with helping low-performing schools to meet AYP standards, especially as the “ultimate goal”





deadline of 2013-2014 approaches? Studies have been conducted of some aspects of this issue as
narrowly defined. For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study
of the costs to each state of developing and administering the assessments required under Title I-39
A.
According to the GAO, the level of state costs for assessment development and administration, as
well as whether those costs could be met with funding provided by the assessment development
grants that are specifically provided under the NCLB, depends primarily on the kinds of test
questions states choose to utilize. In contrast, it is almost impossible to systematically estimate
the broader costs of improving pupil performance sufficiently for all schools to meet AYP
requirements, and to meet all of the performance-based sanctions that the NCLB requires states
and LEAs to implement. If it were possible to estimate these costs, they would likely exceed total
ESEA appropriations. However, it may be questioned whether the federal government should be
responsible for all of the costs associated with identifying and improving low performing schools,
and there is no agreement on what are the most cost-effective ways to improve school
performance.
Second, should the “costs” associated with NCLB implementation be compared to the total
funding level for Title I-A and other ESEA programs, or only with the increases adopted since
FY2001? Both the requirements associated with, and the appropriations provided for, the NCLB
built upon a body of previous ESEA requirements and funding. It may be questioned whether any
“cost-benefit” focus should be on marginal changes, or on the entirety.
Third, should costs and benefits be evaluated separately for states vs. LEAs vs. individual
schools? Costs and benefits of ESEA participation may differ substantially for state governments
vs. varying types of LEAs. For example, SEAs are responsible for developing, implementing, and
reporting to ED and the public on policies embodying many of the NCLB’s distinctive
requirements (such as assessments, AYP, or highly qualified teachers). However, with very few
exceptions (e.g., assessment development grants), SEAs have experienced increases in federal
funding to help meet these costs that are simply proportional to total program funding levels. At
the LEA level, somewhat increased targeting of ESEA Title I-A funds on LEAs with relatively 40
high numbers or percentages of pupils from low-income families combined with flat or slowly
rising total funding levels has resulted in declining funding levels for thousands of LEAs at the
same time that they must implement a number of expanded ESEA requirements. At the same
time, many LEAs, most of them large or high poverty or both, have experienced comparatively
large increases in ESEA funding in recent years.
Finally, should costs and benefits be evaluated purely in financial terms, or should they include
broader concepts such as changes in pupil achievement level or shifts in control over education
policy by different levels of government? Beyond finances, the benefits of the expanded NCLB
requirements may include increased attention to the educational status of disadvantaged pupils
and the schools they attend, a heightened emphasis on applying high achievement expectations to
all pupils, and a wider range of assessment data for pupils, schools, LEAs and states. Non-
financial costs may include a limited yet substantial increase in federal influence on basic policies

39 Government Accountability Office. Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information Sharing
May Help States Realize Efficiencies, GAO-03-389.
40 See CRS Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the
No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.





affecting all public school pupils, and an emphasis on assessments that may narrow the
curriculum of instruction if the tests do not measure the full range of skills and subjects that
public schools are expected to impart.
Possible reauthorization issues regarding ESEA/NCLB funding levels include the following.
• Should the authorization level for at least some ESEA programs continue to be
specified after FY2008, and if so, at what levels? Congressional intent regarding
anticipated funding levels could be clarified by explicitly stating appropriation
authorization levels for each program and each year of the authorization period.
At the same time, this would generate debates over the level at which
authorizations should be set. Further, given that the appropriation for the largest
ESEA program, Title I-A, has been below the authorized amount each year, it
may be questioned whether the specification of authorization levels has a
significant impact beyond generating debate. At the same time, specified
authorizations do provide a goal for those seeking increased funding, and express
the judgement of those involved in the authorizing process of an appropriate level
of funding.
• Should the implementation of existing or additional requirements be linked to the
provision of specified minimum (“trigger”) levels of funding? In the NCLB,
implementation of certain new pupil assessment requirements was made
contingent upon the provision of specified minimum levels of funding for
assessment development grants to the states. This policy might become a model
for possible expanded assessment or other requirements in a reauthorized ESEA,
to address ongoing funding level debates as well as concerns about the costs vs.
benefits of ESEA participation for states and LEAs.
• Do the costs to states and LEAs of meeting the ESEA’s requirements that were
initiated under the No Child Left Behind Act exceed the benefit of federal aid
increases since 2001, especially in a period of relatively tight federal budgets?
This question will likely be raised, but it will be exceptionally difficult to resolve.
A key issue is whether accountability provisions such as those initiated under the
NCLB are seen as appropriate mechanisms for assuring effective use of all
federal, state, and local funds, rather than just a trade-off for marginal increases
in federal funds.

• Should the ESEA place much greater emphasis on enhancing the nation’s
international competitiveness in science, mathematics, and foreign language
achievement?
National policy discussions have increasingly focused on the relationships between the
performance of the nation’s educational system and the long-term competitiveness of the nation’s
economy. While much of this discussion has been focused on higher education, concerns also





arise from average academic achievement levels of U.S. K-12 pupils in science and mathematics
that are below those of many other developed nations, especially at the high school level. This
concern is combined with widely held assumptions that there is a significant relationship between
academic achievement levels in mathematics and science with a variety of indicators of
international economic competitiveness.
In the 2006 administration of assessments under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development’s (OECD’s) Program for International Student Assessments (PISA), 15-year old 41
pupils in the United States scored significantly below 23 other OECD nations in mathematics,
and below 16 other OECD countries in science. In each case, U.S. scores were below the OECD 42
average as well.
International comparisons of achievement in mathematics and science of 12th grade students in
the United States and other developed and developing nations were most recently conducted in
the mid-1990s; these were coordinated by the International Association for the Evaluation of 43
Educational Achievement (IEA). The scores of U.S. students in these assessments were lower
than those for 18 of the 20 other participating countries in mathematics (all except Cyprus and
South Africa), and were below those of 15 of the 20 other participating countries in science.
At the same time, the relative performance of younger pupils in the United States is somewhat thth
more positive. The average scores of U.S. pupils in 4 and 8 grades on the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) conducted in 2007 were above the
international average in mathematics and science. In terms of country rankings, the United States 44
performance was approximately in the middle overall on the latest TIMSS assessments.
However, in addition to focusing on earlier grades, these TIMSS assessments include a wider
range of nations than the OECD or IEA assessments, with a larger proportion of less-developed
nations participating.
Although the ESEA currently has a few programs that are specifically focused on improving 45
instruction in mathematics, science, or foreign languages, these are relatively small. One of the
largest ESEA programs—the Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund (Title II, Part
A)—was initially focused on improving the skills and content knowledge of K-12 teachers of
mathematics and science, but no longer focuses on any specific subject areas. Aside from targeted
programs, perhaps the most significant competitiveness-related element of the current ESEA is
the inclusion of mathematics and (to a lesser degree) science in the ESEA Title I-A assessment
requirements, and the required use of mathematics assessment results in AYP determinations.

41 Among OECD countries, the scores of only Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and Mexico were below those of U.S.
pupils.
42 See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008016.pdf.
43
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Mathematics and Science Achievement in the
Final Year of Secondary School: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 1998, by Ina V.S. Mullis et
al.
44 See CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background,
Federal Policy, and Legislative Action, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
45 The largest current ESEA program focused on mathematics, science, or foreign languages is the Mathematics and
Science Partnership Program authorized under Title II, Part B, and funded at $179.0 million for FY2008. This program
is focused primarily on providing professional development activities for K-12 mathematics and science teachers.





During the 111th Congress, Members are likely to consider possible changes to federal K-12
education policies regarding assessments, accountability, and other aspects of science and th
mathematics education through proposed amendments to the No Child Left Behind Act. The 110
Congress adopted the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in
Technology, Education, and Science Act, also known as the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-

69). Among several other provisions, that legislation authorizes support for a variety of non-


ESEA programs of K-12 mathematics and science education administered by the Departments of 46
Education and Energy plus the National Science Foundation.
As discussed earlier, the ESEA currently requires states participating in Title I-A to implement
standards-based assessments in reading and mathematics in each of grades 3-8 plus once in high
school, and in science at three grade levels. Further, while statutory provisions are ambiguous on
this point, current ED policy does not require states and LEAs to incorporate science assessment
results in making AYP determinations. One series of options to address competitiveness concerns
would be to expand K-12 science and even mathematics assessment requirements, especially at
the high school level, and to require incorporation of science assessment results into AYP
determinations.
The ESEA provisions regarding K-12 teachers could be modified to encourage more
postsecondary graduates in STEM to enter, and remain in, positions as K-12 teachers. For
example, a previous focus on science and mathematics in the largest ESEA teacher program (Title
II-A) might be revived in some form. Finally, proposed ESEA amendments might focus on
improvement of the infrastructure (equipment, facilities, and quality of instructional materials) for
K-12 science and mathematics instruction.
Possible reauthorization issues regarding international competitiveness include the following.
• Does the requirement that all students must attain proficiency on state academic
assessments in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014 have any adverse effect
on the ability of schools and LEAs to devote adequate resources toward
providing a challenging educational experience to students who are already
achieving at a proficient or higher level? Some have questioned whether the
requirement that all students must attain proficiency on state academic
assessments in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014 may be having an
indirect, adverse effect on our long-term competitiveness by reducing the ability
of schools and LEAs to devote adequate resources toward providing a
challenging educational experience to students who are already achieving at a
proficient or higher level. Currently, specific federal support for more
challenging academic programs for advanced K-12 students is quite limited. The
implicit, primary federal strategy of recent decades has been to focus on raising
the base achievement level for the disadvantaged, rather than challenging the
more advanced students. Alternative proposals might place greater emphasis on

46 See CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background,
Federal Policy, and Legislative Action, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.





maximizing achievement by more advanced students, for example, by giving
some credit toward meeting AYP requirements in return for increases in the
number or percentage of students scoring at an advanced level of achievement.
• Should states and LEAs be explicitly required to include the results of
assessments in science in their AYP determinations, and should the number of
required science assessments be expanded? The ESEA’s emphasis on science
education in particular could be significantly expanded by increasing the number
of grades in which science assessments must be administered by participating
states, and explicitly requiring the inclusion of science assessment results in AYP
determinations. Opponents would likely argue that the ESEA’s assessment and
AYP provisions are already extensive and complex, and should not be expanded.
• Should programmatic aid under the ESEA be targeted more specifically on
science, mathematics, and foreign languages? Major options here include
focusing teacher recruitment and professional development programs on these
subjects, or providing new forms of aid for instructional infrastructure (such as
classroom laboratories). The opposing argument is that these decisions are best
left to state and local educational authorities.

• The NCLB, with its numerous new or substantially expanded requirements for
participating states and LEAs, initiated a major increase in federal involvement in
basic aspects of public K-12 education. Should the active federal role in K-12
education embodied in the NCLB be maintained?
Although ESEA reauthorization debates have been substantially focused on major specific
aspects of the current federal role in K-12 education discussed above—such as assessments, AYP,
performance-based sanctions, or staff qualifications—there has also been a broader consideration
of the aggregate impact of current federal K-12 education policies. The NCLB represented a
quantum increase in federal involvement in the nation’s K-12 education systems, and several
issues have arisen with respect to not only the statutory provisions but also the manner in which
they have been implemented and administered by ED.
Previous to enactment of the NCLB, the scope of most federal K-12 education program 47
requirements was limited to specific programs or activities supported by federal grant programs.
Although steps in the direction of a broader scope for some federal program requirements began 48
with the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (IASA), the NCLB represented a major
expansion of the scope of federal requirements. As discussed above, provisions associated with
participation in the ESEA Title I-A program of Education for the Disadvantaged have a major
impact on assessment, accountability, staff qualifications, and other basic policies affecting all
public schools and students.

47 One long-term exception to this pattern would be civil rights requirements applicable to the total operations of
federal aid recipient agencies.
48 For example, the assessments in reading and mathematics at three grade levels, required under the IASA for states
participating in ESEA Title I-A, were generally to be the same assessments as used statewide.





Not only are the statutory provisions in these areas broad in scope and detailed in nature, but in
the view of many observers, during the Bush Administration they have been administered by ED
in a comparatively active and strict manner. As ED staff and designated peer reviewers have
examined initial and revised state policies regarding assessments, AYP, performance-based
sanctions, and teacher qualifications, several observers have expressed concerns about a lack of
transparency in the review procedures and criteria; inconsistencies (especially over time) in the
types of changes that ED officials have approved; whether the net effect of the changes is to make
the accountability requirements more strict or more flexible; whether the changes may make an
already complicated accountability system even more complex; and whether decisions on 49
proposed changes are being made in a timely manner by ED.
In addition, especially during the stalemate over ESEA reauthorization proposals in the 110th
Congress, the Bush Administration took the opportunity to expand federal regulation of ESEA
programs as well as allow selected, substantial forms of flexibility through the expansive use of
waiver authority provided under Title IX of the ESEA. For example, new regulations published in
October 2008 substantially expanded ESEA Title I-A requirements dealing with high school
graduation rates, as used in AYP determinations, as well as school choice and supplemental
educational services for pupils in schools identified for improvement. At the same time, these
regulations codify a previously-initiated waiver program allowing use of growth models of AYP,
and a new waiver pilot allows a limited number of states to implement differentiated
consequences for schools that fail to make AYP (see page 15). These actions reflected a trend
toward not only increased federal influence but more specifically increased control over the
federal influence by Administration initiatives, as opposed to statutes.
Although the NCLB substantially increased federal involvement and direction in the K-12
education policies of participating states, debates during the 2001 reauthorization of the ESEA
also featured numerous proposals to increase state and LEA flexibility in the use of federal aid,
and some of these proposals were included in the NCLB. For example, the eligibility threshold
for schools to be allowed to use their ESEA Title I-A funds on a schoolwide basis was reduced to

40%, a level that is approximately the national average percentage of pupils from low-income 50


families. The statute allows the use of funds under most federal aid programs, not just Title I-A,
on a schoolwide basis, if basic program objectives and fiscal accountability requirements are met.
In addition, the NCLB amended the ESEA to allow most LEAs to transfer up to 50% of their
grants among four programs—Teachers, Technology, Safe and Drug Free Schools, and the
Innovative Programs Block Grant—or into (not from) Title I-A. The NCLB further authorized
additional forms of special flexibility to states and LEAs, although participation in most of these 51
authorities has been extremely limited.
Another aspect of this active federal role is continuation of a strategy of providing ESEA aid
through a large number of separate, categorical programs. The NCLB eliminated some previous
ESEA programs, and in some other cases it consolidated groups of related ESEA programs into a
single program. At the same time, the NCLB authorized several new ESEA programs, and there

49 See, for example, Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left
Behind Act, and Council of Chief State School Officers, Statewide Educational Accountability Under the NCLB Act—A
Report on 2006 Amendments to State Plans.
50 Under this provision, any school participating in Title I-A with 40% or more of its pupils from low-income families
may qualify to operate a schoolwide program.
51 See CRS Report RL31583, K-12 Education: Special Forms of Flexibility in the Administration of Federal Aid
Programs, by Wayne C. Riddle.





are currently 45 authorized ESEA programs. While this is a reduction from the 57 authorized
programs in the pre-NCLB version of the ESEA, this comparison is somewhat misleading, as the 52
current statute combines approximately 20 distinct sub-programs under one authorization.
As a result of the detailed and broadly applicable requirements adopted under the NCLB, federal
involvement in public K-12 education is significantly more extensive than in the past, while the
aggregate federal contribution to public K-12 education revenues remains relatively small
(approximately 9%). In considering the ESEA for reauthorization, the Congress will decide
whether to continue this active federal strategy, perhaps expanding it further through increased
assessment or other requirements, or alternatively to place tighter limits on the scope of federal
involvement in state and local K-12 education systems. A hybrid approach might involve
continued or expanded federal requirements regarding pupil outcomes combined with fewer
requirements regarding the purposes for which federal grant funds can be used. Examples of the
latter might include program consolidation, an expansion of current authority to transfer funds
among ESEA programs, or policies offering increased flexibility in return for reaching specified
levels of performance.
Possible reauthorization issues regarding the federal role in K-12 education include the following:
• Should the current relatively active level of federal involvement in broad K-12
education policies be sustained or expanded? An active federal role is an
expression of the national interest in improving educational performance, and an
effort to assure effective use of federal aid funds. At the same time, a federal role
of less scope would be consistent with the limited federal contribution to public
K-12 education revenues, as well as the historical primacy of states and LEAs in
K-12 education policy.
• Have major NCLB requirements been implemented by ED in a consistent,
transparent, and effective manner? An expansion of the scope of federal
requirements has been accompanied by increased attention to the ways in which
those requirements are administered and enforced by ED. Efforts might be
devoted to ways to enhance the transparency and consistency of future ESEA
implementation activities—for example, through increased public dissemination
of information on policies proposed by states and ED’s responses to those
proposals.
• Should the level of flexibility provided to states and LEAs in their use of ESEA
grant funds be expanded? As with the NCLB, efforts to sustain or expand
outcome accountability requirements are likely to be coupled with efforts to
increase state and local flexibility in other respects, particularly with respect to
how federal aid funds may be used.
• Should new constraints be placed on the authority of the Secretary of Education
to change ESEA policies through regulations or waivers? As exemplified during

52 Under the Fund for the Improvement of Education, ESEA Title V-D, 20 distinct programs are combined under a
single authorization. In practice, appropriations are provided individually for many of these programs.





the final years of the Bush Administration, the Secretary of Education has
extensive authority to change many important ESEA policies through new
program regulations and waivers. In particular, although the ESEA’s waiver
authority places limits on types of requirements that can be waived, those limits
were established several years ago (in 1994, under the IASA) and do not include
the major assessment, AYP, or accountability policies of ESEA Title I-A,
virtually all of which could be waived at the discretion of the Secretary.
Wayne C. Riddle
Specialist in Education Policy
wriddle@crs.loc.gov, 7-7382