Federal Indian Elementary-Secondary Education Programs: Background and Issues

Cassandria Dortch
Analyst in Education Policy

The federal government provides elementary and secondary education and educational assistance to Indian children, either directly through federally funded schools or indirectly through educational assistance to public schools. Direct education is provided by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the U.S. Department of the Interior, through elementary and secondary schools funded by the BIE. Educational assistance to public schools is provided chiefly through programs of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The student population served by federal Indian education programs consists of members (or descendants of members) of Indian tribes, not American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), as identified by race/ethnicity. Most of this Indian education population attends public schools. Most federal data on Indian students are based on race/ethnicity, however, which complicates analysis of results for the population served by federal Indian education programs.

The BIE was originally part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Interior Department. The BIA began the current system of direct Indian education in the decades following the Civil War, with congressional approval and funding. The system developed gradually to its current structure. In the late 19th century, the BIA began placing a few students in public schools, a trend that accelerated after about 1910. At present, 90% or more of the Indian student population attends public schools.

The BIE-funded education system for Indian students includes 169 schools (and 14 “peripheral dormitories” for students attending public schools nearby). Schools and dorms may be operated by the BIE itself or by tribes and tribal organizations. A number of BIE programs provide funding and services, supplemented by set-asides for BIE schools from ED programs. Federal funding for Indian students in public schools flows to school districts chiefly through ED programs, with a small addition from a single BIE program. BIE and public schools are subject to the standards and accountability provisions in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), although not all such provisions apply to BIE schools.

Authorization for most ESEA programs ended in FY2007. The 113th Congress is likely to consider reauthorization of the ESEA and may amend BIE and BIA educational provisions in Title 25 U.S. Code. Among the issues that may be raised are the academic outcomes of Indian students in public and BIE schools, the incorporation of native language instruction, the development of academic standards and assessments by Indian tribes, the conditions of BIE school facilities, and appropriate participation of Indian tribes in public school education.


Date of Report: February 11, 2013
Number of Pages: 48
Order Number: RL34205
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL34205.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (DCTAG) Program

Alexandra Hegji
Analyst in Social Policy

The District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-98) was enacted on November 12, 1999, creating the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (DCTAG) program. The program provides grants to District of Columbia residents for undergraduate education. Grants for study at public institutions of higher education (IHEs) nationwide offset the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition and fees, up to $10,000 per year and a cumulative maximum of $50,000. Students may also receive grants of up to $2,500 per year and a cumulative maximum of $12,500 for undergraduate study at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) nationwide and private IHEs in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.


Date of Report: February 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R41313
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41313.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Department of Education Final Rules for Postsecondary Education Programs That Prepare Students for Gainful Employment in a Recognized Occupation

David P. Smole
Specialist in Education Policy

Some types of postsecondary education programs at institutions of higher education that are eligible for participation in the federal student aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), face additional conditions for Title IV aid eligibility. These programs, which are offered by public and private not-for-profit institutions of higher education and postsecondary vocational institutions, and by for-profit proprietary institutions of higher education, must prepare students for gainful employment in recognized occupations.

For many years, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) had not promulgated regulations that explicitly defined what it means for a program to be preparing students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. To address concerns about the quality of programs that prepare students for gainful employment and concerns about the level of student loan debt assumed by students who attend these programs, ED issued new rules on gainful employment in late 2010 and early 2011.

The final rules established a series of reporting and disclosure requirements for institutions of higher education that offer gainful employment programs and additional requirements for institutions that add new gainful employment programs. The rules also established a series of three performance metrics designed to measure how effectively completers of gainful employment programs repay the student loans they borrow to attend these programs, and the relationship between their student loan debt and their earnings. One metric, a loan repayment rate, was designed to measure how effectively students who are borrowers of federal student loans and who attended a gainful employment program repay the loans they borrowed to attend the program. Two additional metrics—an earnings rate and a discretionary income rate—are debt-toearnings measures and were designed to measure the proportion of students who complete a gainful employment program whose combined federal and non-federal student loan debt exceeds certain percentage thresholds of their earnings. A program failing to pass at least one of the three performance metrics for any three out of the most recently completed four fiscal years would lose eligibility to participate in HEA, Title IV programs.

The Department of Education’s efforts to establish new rules on gainful employment were very contentious. When ED published proposed rules in the summer of 2010, it received an unprecedented volume of comments. Overall, ED received more than 90,000 comments, with approximately three-quarters opposed to the rules and one-quarter in support. Many were concerned that the new rules would increase regulatory burden and potential adverse effects from programs losing eligibility to participate in HEA, Title IV federal student aid programs. Others supported the regulation of gainful employment programs, particularly with regard to the student loan debt of students who attend them.

Prior to the effective date of the gainful employment regulations, they were challenged in court by the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities. On June 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision that vacated most aspects of the regulations and remanded them to ED for further action. At present, only the disclosure requirements remain in effect.

This report provides an overview of the Department of Education’s rules on gainful employment and their current status.


Date of Report: January 23, 2013
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R42011
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42011.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher Education Act: How the Program Works, Recent Legislative Changes, and Current Issues

Shannon M. Mahan
Specialist in Education Policy

The federal Pell Grant program, authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA; P.L. 89-329), is the single largest source of federal grant aid supporting postsecondary education students. The program provided over $33.5 billion to approximately 9.7 million undergraduate students in FY2011. For FY2012, the total maximum Pell Grant was funded at $5,550. The program is funded primarily through annual discretionary appropriations, although in recent years mandatory appropriations have played a smaller yet increasing role in the program. The statutory authority for the Pell Grant program was most recently reauthorized by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA; P.L. 110-315).

Pell Grants are need-based aid that is intended to be the foundation for all federal student aid awarded to undergraduates. There is no absolute income threshold that determines who is eligible or ineligible for Pell Grants. Nevertheless, Pell Grant recipients are primarily low-income. In FY2010, an estimated 74% of all Pell Grant recipients had a total family income at or below $30,000.

The Pell Grant program has garnered considerable attention over the past several years in Congress, primarily due to the ongoing need for additional program funding from FY2009 to FY2011. The need for additional funding during this time period was driven by both anticipated and unanticipated cost increases in the program. Some of the factors contributing to these increased costs included (1) legislative changes enacted in FY2009 and prior years that led to increased benefits for more students; (2) increases in the number of students enrolling in college and applying for Pell Grant aid; and (3) a weakened economy. Congress responded to these funding needs through numerous legislative efforts in FY2010 through FY2011 by providing additional mandatory funding to augment discretionary funding for current and future years. This additional mandatory funding was offset by reductions in spending on the federal student loan programs and changes to the Pell Grant program’s eligibility and award rules.

Most recently, the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74) provided $22.8 billion in discretionary funding for the program in FY2012 and an additional $3.1 billion in mandatory funds for general use in the program from FY2012 to FY2021, of which $612 million is available beginning in FY2012. These mandatory funds were offset by changes also included in the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act to federal student aid programs in the HEA that took effect on July 1, 2012.

Some of the issues concerning the Pell Grant program that may confront this session of Congress center on appropriate satisfactory academic progress measures for students who receive Pell Grant aid and outcome measures for both students and institutions that receive Pell Grant aid. While the funding needs of the program appear to be met for FY2013 due to advance mandatory appropriations and other changes, Congress may begin to consider the implications of additional funding needs in FY2014, when advance mandatory appropriations to augment discretionary appropriations are substantially less than in FY2013. Finally, Congress may also continue to consider ways to decrease future program costs by changing the distribution of overall benefits by targeting aid to the most needy students or by revising the program’s award rules and eligibility parameters.


Date of Report: January 15, 2013
Number of Pages: 51
Order Number: R42446
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42446.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART


e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer

Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy

The primary source of federal aid to K-12 education is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), particularly its Title I, Part A program of Education for the Disadvantaged. The ESEA was initially enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-10), and was most recently amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110). The NCLB authorized virtually all ESEA programs through FY2008. It is widely expected that the 113th Congress will consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA.

The NCLB initiated a major expansion of federal influence upon several aspects of public K-12 education, primarily with the aim of increasing the accountability of public school systems and individual public schools for improving achievement outcomes of all students, especially the disadvantaged. States must implement in all public schools and school districts a variety of standards-based assessments in reading, math and science; make complex annual adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations for each public school and district; and require virtually all public school teachers and aides to meet a variety of qualification requirements. State AYP policies must incorporate an ultimate goal of all public school students reaching a proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-14 school year. Further, participating states must enforce a series of increasingly substantial consequences for most of their schools and almost all school districts that fail to meet the AYP standards for two consecutive years or more. All of these requirements are associated with state participation in the ESEA Title I-A program.

Other major ESEA programs provide grants to support the education of migrant students; recruitment of and professional development for teachers; language instruction for limited English proficient students; drug abuse prevention programs; after-school instruction and care; expansion of charter schools and other forms of public school choice; education services for Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native students; Impact Aid to compensate local educational agencies for taxes foregone due to certain federal activities; and a wide variety of innovative educational approaches or instruction to meet particular student needs.

While Congress has not enacted legislation to reauthorize the ESEA, the Administration has made available an ESEA flexibility package that waives various academic accountability requirements, teacher qualification-related requirements, and funding flexibility requirements that were enacted through NCLB. In exchange for these waivers, states must agree to meet four principles established by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) for “improving student academic achievement and increasing the quality of instruction.” The four principles, as stated by ED, are as follows: (1) college- and career-ready expectations for all students; (2) state-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; (3) supporting effective instruction and leadership; and (4) reducing duplication and unnecessary burden.

Taken collectively, the waivers and principles included in the ESEA flexibility package amount to a fundamental redesign by the Administration of many of the accountability and teacher-related requirements included in current law. As of December 2012, ED had approved ESEA flexibility package applications for 34 states and the District of Columbia and was reviewing applications from several other states. If Congress considers ESEA reauthorization during the 113th Congress, it is possible that provisions included in any final bill may be similar to or override the waivers and principles established by the Administration.


Date of Report: January 14, 2013
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: RL33960
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL33960.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.