PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2015
Achievement Through Technology and Innovation Reauthorization Act of 2015
Amends title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to rename part D (Achievement through Technology and Innovation) as the Achievement Through Technology and Innovation Act of 2015 or the ATTAIN Act and to reauthorize it through FY2020.
Authorizes the Secretary of Education to reserve a portion of the part D funding to provide states with technical assistance and information in adopting evidence-based best practices for using technology to transform learning.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to allot part D grants to states on the basis of each state's share of school improvement funds under part A of title I of the ESEA.
Requires state grantees to develop and implement challenging academic content and achievement standards to ensure that students are technologically literate. Declares that such standards are only for tracking technological literacy and not for assessing adequate yearly progress (AYP) under title I. Permits the assessment of student performance in gaining technology literacy through embedding assessment items in other state tests or performance-based assessments portfolios or through other valid and reliable means.
Directs states to use the bulk of their allotment to award competitive subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to improve student learning, technology literacy, and achievement. Requires that priority be given to LEAs serving schools that have been identified as needing improvement.
Require an LEA to: (1) include a new or updated local long-range strategic educational technology plan in its subgrant application, (2) use up to 5% of its subgrant to evaluate its use of the subgrant, and (3) use its remaining subgrant to implement a plan for systemic school redesign through technology integration in at least one of its schools.
Requires the plans for systemic school redesign to include: (1) professional development activities for educators; (2) the acquisition and application of technology, in conjunction with curricular or instructional changes, to improve students' learning opportunities, academic achievement, and technical literacy; and (3) the acquisition and application of technology to identify individual student learning needs and support personalized learning.
People & committees
Rep. Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D-CA-40] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1004 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1004 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1004 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1004 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.