PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2025
Teacher and School Leader Quality Partnership Grants Act
This bill reauthorizes through FY2031 and expands the Teacher Quality Partnership program (which provides grants to improve the quality of teachers and enhance professional development activities).
Specifically, the bill expands the program to include training and professional development opportunities for principals and other school leaders.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Currently under the program, eligible partnerships must be comprised of (1) a high-need local educational agency; (2) a high-need school or early childhood education program; (3) a partner institution; and (4) certain schools, departments, or programs within a partner institution. The bill requires these partnerships, in their preparation or residency programs, to use evidence-based methods and adhere to an evaluation plan that includes comprehensive performance objectives.
Additionally, the bill authorizes grants for the establishment of professional development programs for teachers who remain in the classroom while also carrying out formalized leadership responsibilities.
The bill also establishes an advisory committee within the Department of Education to conduct a feasibility study that, among other things, compiles best practices for educating and training profession-ready teachers and school leaders.
People & committees
Rep. McClellan, Jennifer L. [D-VA-4] · D–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 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.1331 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.1331 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.1331 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.1331 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would revise federal education grants supporting teacher preparation, school leader training, and leadership roles for classroom teachers. Partnerships involving colleges and high-need school districts would operate preparation or residency programs. Residents would receive a year of pay in exchange for a commitment to work in high-need schools for at least three school years. The bill would also revise public reporting and state oversight of preparation programs.
(1) shall use such grant to carry out— (A) a program for the pre-baccalaureate or a 5th year initial licensing program preparation of teachers described in subsection (d); (B) teaching residency program or principal or other school leader residency program program described in subsection (e); or (C) a combination of such programs;
(A) shall include— (i) a high-need local educational agency; (ii) (I) a high-need school or a consortium of high-need schools served by the high-need local educational agency; or (II) as applicable, a high-need early childhood education program; (iii) a partner institution;
shall provide a 1-year living stipend or salary to teaching or principal or other school leader residents
serve as a full-time teacher, principal, or other school leader for a total of not less than 3 school years at— (aa) a high-need school served by the high-need local educational agency in the eligible partnership
shall report annually to the State and the general public
a State shall conduct an assessment to identify at-risk and low-performing teacher and school leader preparation programs in the State and to assist such programs through the provision of technical assistance.
The bill would be called the Teacher and School Leader Quality Partnership Grants Act. Its stated purposes include holding preparation programs accountable, recruiting qualified educators, and addressing staffing needs through partnerships with colleges. These are proposed goals, not demonstrated results.
This Act may be cited as the Teacher and School Leader Quality Partnership Grants Act.
(4) hold teacher preparation programs and school leader preparation programs accountable for preparing effective teachers, principals and school leaders, and other educators; (5) recruit profession-ready individuals, including underrepresented groups and individuals from other occupations (including informal education and youth development fields), as teachers and other educators; and (6) meet the staffing needs of high-need local educational agencies and high-need schools through close partnerships with educator preparation programs within institutions of higher education.
An eligible partnership would have to include a high-need school district, a qualifying school or early childhood program, a participating college, and an education school, department, or program within that college. Additional partners could include businesses, nonprofit educational organizations, educator organizations, charter schools, and alternative certification programs.
(A) shall include— (i) a high-need local educational agency; (ii) (I) a high-need school or a consortium of high-need schools served by the high-need local educational agency; or (II) as applicable, a high-need early childhood education program; (iii) a partner institution; and (iv) a school, department, or program of education within such partner institution
(v) A business. (vi) A public or private nonprofit educational organization. (vii) An educational service agency. (viii) A teacher, principal, or school leader organization.
(x) A charter school (as defined in section 4310 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7221i)).
(xiv) An entity operating a program that provides alternative routes to State certification of teachers or principals.
A district would qualify as high-need only if it met both a poverty or rural-program criterion and a school-support or staffing criterion. The first could be at least 10,000 low-income children, at least 20 percent low-income children, eligibility for either listed rural program, or a low-income share in the state's highest quarter. The second would require at least one school identified for comprehensive support, with high teacher turnover, or with a state-determined shortage in a high-needs field.
(A) (i) that serves not fewer than 10,000 low-income children; (ii) for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the agency are low-income children; (iii) that meets the eligibility requirements for funding under the Small, Rural School Achievement Program under section 5211(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 or the Rural and Low-Income School Program under section 6221(b) of such Act; or (iv) that has a percentage of low-income children that is in the highest quartile among such agencies in the State; and (B) (i) for which one or more schools served by the agency is identified by the State for comprehensive supports and interventions under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; or (ii) for which one or more schools served by the agency has a high teacher turnover rate or is experiencing a teacher shortage in a high-needs field, as determined by the State.
A high-need school would generally qualify through its district poverty ranking or free or reduced-price lunch eligibility: at least 60 percent of students for elementary schools and 45 percent for other schools. The Secretary could approve a school outside those criteria after considering an application containing poverty and achievement information and, for a secondary school, its graduation rate.
The school is in the highest quartile of schools in a ranking of all schools served by a local educational agency, ranked in descending order by percentage of students from low-income families enrolled in such schools
(I) an elementary school, the school serves students not less than 60 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act; or (II) any other school that is not an elementary school, the other school serves students not less than 45 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
The Secretary may, upon approval of an application submitted by an eligible partnership seeking a grant under this title, designate a school that does not qualify as a high-need school under subparagraph (A) as a high-need school for the purpose of this title. The Secretary shall base the approval of an application for designation of a school under this clause on a consideration of the information required under clause (ii), and may also take into account other information submitted by the eligible partnership.
(I) the number and percentage of students attending such school who are— (aa) aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary; (bb) eligible for a free or reduced price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act; (cc) in families receiving assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act; or (dd) eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program; (II) information about the student academic achievement of students at such school; and (III) for a secondary school, the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for such school.
Participating colleges would need a state-accredited teacher or school leader preparation program. Teacher programs would need either an assessment pass rate of at least 80 percent among graduates intending to teach or a qualifying state determination that the program is not low-performing. School leader programs would need strong graduate placement and performance records and substantial practical leadership experience for students.
has a teacher preparation program or school leader preparation program that is accredited by the State
(I) demonstrating that 80 percent or more of the graduates of the program who intend to enter the field of teaching have passed all of the applicable State qualification assessments for new teachers, which shall include an assessment of each prospective teacher’s subject matter knowledge in the content area in which the teacher intends to teach; or (II) that is not designated as a low-performing teacher preparation program in the State as determined by the State
(I) a high percentage of such graduates taking positions as assistant principals and principals within 3 years of completing the program; and (II) a high percentage of such graduates rated effective or above in State school leader evaluation and support systems (as described in section 2101(c)(4)(B)(ii) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) or, if no such ratings are available, other, comparable indicators of performance
requires each student in the program to participate in intensive clinical experience in an authentic setting (including by assuming substantial leadership responsibilities) in which the student can be evaluated on leadership skills and the student’s effect on student outcomes as part of program completion.
The bill would define an induction program as structured support during at least the first two years of teaching or school leadership. It would require mentoring, collaboration, and evaluations using multiple measures with useful feedback. Mentoring would include paid release time for mentors and, for new or prospective teachers, a mentor teaching in the same field, grade, or subject.
a formalized program for new teachers or school leaders, during not less than the teachers’ or school leaders’ first 2 years of, respectively, teaching or leading
(A) High-quality mentoring. (B) Periodic, structured time for collaboration, including with mentors
Regular and structured observation and evaluation of new teachers, principals, or other school leaders that are based in part on evidence of student learning, shall include multiple measures of educator performance, and shall provide clear, timely, and useful feedback
(D) provides paid release time for mentors; (E) in the case of mentees who are new or prospective teachers, provides mentoring to each mentee by a colleague who teaches in the same field, grade, or subject as the mentee;
Grant recipients would have to operate teacher preparation before a bachelor's degree or through a fifth-year initial licensing program, a teacher or school leader residency, or a combination. They could also fund teacher leader development based on their needs assessment.
(1) shall use such grant to carry out— (A) a program for the pre-baccalaureate or a 5th year initial licensing program preparation of teachers described in subsection (d); (B) teaching residency program or principal or other school leader residency program program described in subsection (e); or (C) a combination of such programs; and (2) may use such grant to carry out other educator development programs under subsection (f), based upon the results of the needs assessment in subsection (b)(1).
(f) Teacher leader development program
Grant applications would have to describe preparation for working with students with disabilities and English learners. They would also describe college faculty collaboration with school educators on teaching skills, literacy, and—where the college has a leadership preparation program—school leadership.
(F) how the partnership will prepare educators to teach and work with students with disabilities, including training related to early identification of students with disabilities and participation as a member of individualized education program teams
(G) how the partnership will prepare educators to teach and work with students who are English learners
(H) how faculty at the partner institution will work, during the term of the grant, with mentor educators in the classrooms and administrators of high-need schools served by the high-need local educational agency in the partnership to— (i) provide high-quality professional development activities to strengthen the content knowledge and teaching skills of elementary school and secondary school teachers and other educators, including multi-tiered systems of support and universal design for learning; (ii) train other classroom teachers, principals or other school leaders, school librarians, and other educators to implement literacy programs that incorporate the components of comprehensive literacy instruction; and (iii) provide evidence-based, high-quality professional development activities to strengthen the instructional and leadership skills of elementary school and secondary school principals or other school leaders and district superintendents, if the partner institution has a principal or school leader preparation program;
Teacher residencies would combine coursework with at least one academic year alongside a trained, experienced mentor. Coursework would lead to a bachelor's or master's degree and full state certification or licensing. Graduates would be placed in groups supporting professional collaboration and receive support through at least their first two years of teaching.
place graduates of the teaching residency program in cohorts that facilitate professional collaboration, both among graduates of the residency program and between such graduates and mentor teachers in the receiving school.
shall lead to the attainment of a bachelor’s or master’s degree, respectively, and full State teacher certification or licensure.
Experience and learning opportunities alongside a trained and experienced mentor teacher for not less than 1 academic year
Continued support for residents once such residents are hired as the teachers of record, through an induction program, evidence-based professional development, and networking opportunities to support the residents through not less than the residents' first 2 years of teaching.
Teacher residency applicants would have to be recent four-year college graduates or mid-career professionals with strong subject knowledge or professional accomplishments. Selection would consider subject knowledge, communication, and other teaching-related qualities. Admissions priorities could consider applicants who reflect their future school communities and people underrepresented in teaching. The text does not clearly reconcile the recent-graduate or mid-career eligibility requirement with residency coursework leading to a bachelor's degree.
(I) be a recent graduate of a 4-year institution of higher education or a mid-career professional possessing strong content knowledge or a record of professional accomplishment; and (II) submit an application to the residency program.
(I) Strong content knowledge or record of accomplishment in the field or subject area to be taught. (II) Strong verbal and written communication skills, which may be demonstrated by performance on appropriate assessments. (III) Other attributes linked to effective teaching, which may be determined by interviews or performance assessments, as specified by the eligible partnership.
may include consideration of applicants who reflect the communities in which they will teach as well as consideration of individuals from underrepresented populations in the teaching profession.
shall lead to the attainment of a bachelor’s or master’s degree, respectively, and full State teacher certification or licensure.
School leader residencies would include graduate coursework leading to appropriate advanced credentials and full state certification or licensing. Residents would work with an experienced mentor for at least one academic year and receive support through at least their first two years as school leaders. Mentors could receive relief from some duties or a stipend.
Engagement of principal or other school leader residents in rigorous graduate-level coursework
lead to the attainment of appropriate advanced credentials and full State principal, or school leader certification or licensure.
Experience and learning opportunities, including those that provide continuous feedback throughout the program on a participants’ progress, alongside a trained and experienced mentor principal or other school leader for not less than 1 academic year
who may be relieved from some portion of principal or other school leader duties or may be offered a stipend as a result of such additional responsibilities.
networking opportunities to support the residents through not less than the residents’ first 2 years of serving as principal or other school leader of a school.
School leader residency applicants would need prior prekindergarten-through-grade-12 teaching experience and experience in leadership, management, and communication. Selection would consider instructional leadership, communication, and other leadership qualities. Admissions priorities could consider applicants who reflect the communities served and people underrepresented in school leadership.
(I) have prior prekindergarten through grade 12 teaching experience; (II) have experience as an effective leader, manager, and written and oral communicator; and (III) submit an application to the residency program.
(I) Strong instructional leadership skills in an elementary school or secondary school setting. (II) Strong verbal and written communication skills, which may be demonstrated by performance on appropriate assessments. (III) Other attributes linked to effective leadership, such as sound judgment, organizational capacity, collaboration, commitment to equity and inclusiveness, and openness to continuous learning
may include consideration of applicants who reflect the communities in which they will serve and consideration of individuals from underrepresented populations in school leadership positions.
Residency programs would have to provide a one-year living stipend or salary. Recipients would agree to at least three school years of full-time service in a partner district's high-need school; teachers would also teach a partnership-designated high-need subject or area. If no appropriate position were available there, service could take place in another high-need school. Employment would have to be certified at the beginning and end of each year or partial year.
shall provide a 1-year living stipend or salary to teaching or principal or other school leader residents during the teaching residency program or principal residency program
(I) upon successfully completing the 1-year teaching, principal, or other school leader residency program, serve as a full-time teacher, principal, or other school leader for a total of not less than 3 school years at— (aa) a high-need school served by the high-need local educational agency in the eligible partnership and, in the case of a teacher, teach a subject or area that is designated as high-need by the partnership; or (bb) in a case in which no appropriate position is available in a high-need school served by the high-need local educational agency in the eligible partnership, any other high-need school;
provide to the eligible partnership a certificate, from the chief administrative officer of the local educational agency in which the teacher or principal, or other school leader is employed, of the employment required under subclause (I) at the beginning of, and upon completion of, each year or partial year of service
Residents who did not complete their service commitment, or said they would not complete it, would have to repay their stipend or salary with interest set in the partnership agreement. Partnerships could allow proportional repayment or defer service for health, incapacity, inability to find employment in a partner school, military activation, or other extraordinary circumstances. Repayments would fund additional activities consistent with the program's purposes.
shall require a recipient of a stipend or salary under subparagraph (A) who does not complete, or who notifies the partnership that the recipient intends not to complete, the service obligation required by subparagraph (B) to repay such stipend or salary to the eligible partnership, together with interest, at a rate specified by the partnership in the agreement
may include reasonable provisions for prorate repayment of the stipend or salary described in subparagraph (A) or for deferral of a teaching or principal, or other school leader, resident’s service obligation required by subparagraph (B), on grounds of health, incapacitation, inability to secure employment in a school served by the eligible partnership, being called to active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States, or other extraordinary circumstances.
An eligible partnership shall use any repayment received under this subparagraph to carry out additional activities that are consistent with the purposes of this section.
Teacher leader programs would support teachers who keep classroom roles while taking on formal leadership duties, such as curriculum development, family engagement, or coaching colleagues. Programs would provide one year of training and support followed by one or two additional years of support. Partnerships would plan how teachers divide their work time and how leadership activities could continue after the program.
teachers, as described in paragraph (2), who maintain their roles as classroom teachers and who also carry out formalized leadership responsibilities
(A) development of curriculum and curricular resources; (B) facilitating the work of committees and teams; (C) family and community engagement; (D) school discipline and culture; (E) peer observations and coaching; or (F) dual enrollment instruction.
one year of professional development, training, and support
one or two additional years of support
(A) how the work hours of teacher leaders will be allocated between their classroom responsibilities and responsibilities as a teacher leader
(C) how teacher leader activities could be sustained by the eligible partnership after the program concludes
Teacher leader participants would need full state certification, employment in the partner district, at least three years of teaching experience, and an application. Grant funds would cover training and support for two to three years. With additional nonfederal funding, grants could cover up to 50 percent of a stipend in each of the first two grant years and 33 percent in the third. Partnerships could require repayment of credential costs for failure to finish the service term.
(I) is fully certified to teach in the State of the high-need local educational agency that is a partner in the eligible partnership; (II) is employed by such high-need local educational agency; (III) has not less than 3 years of teaching experience; and (IV) submits an application for participation to the eligible partnership;
(C) shall use the grant funds to pay for costs of training and supporting teacher leaders for not less than 2 years and not more than 3 years; (D) may use the grant funds to pay for a portion of a stipend for teacher leaders if such grant funds are matched by additional non-Federal public or private funds as follows: (i) during each of the first and second years of the grant period, grant funds may pay not more than 50 percent of such stipend; and (ii) during the third year of the grant period, grant funds may pay not more than 33 percent of such stipend; and (E) may require teacher leaders to pay back the cost of attaining the credential described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) if they do not complete their term of service in the teacher leader development program.
An administrative amendment would permit an additional grant during the referenced five-year period to establish a teacher or school leader residency not established with the prior grant. Another amendment would replace a reference to a teacher preparation program with teacher education, school leader preparation, or educator development programs. The surrounding administrative provisions are not reproduced.
by striking five-year period and inserting five-year period, except such partnership may receive an additional grant during such period if such grant is used to establish a teacher residency program or principal or other school leader residency program if such residency program was not established with the prior grant
in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking teacher preparation program and inserting teacher education, school leader preparation, or educator development program.
Applicants would have to submit measurable evaluation plans addressing educator achievement, retention during the first five years, and applicable certification or performance assessment results. Plans would also measure hiring of profession-ready educators, representation of underrepresented groups, and applicable staffing in shortage subjects and high-need schools. School leadership measures would include effectiveness after three years, using comparable indicators when state ratings were unavailable.
Each eligible partnership submitting an application for a grant under this part shall establish, and include in such application, an evaluation plan that includes rigorous, comprehensive, and measurable performance objectives.
(1) achievement for all prospective and new educators as measured by the eligible partnership; (2) educator retention in the first 5 years of service as an educator; (3) as applicable, pass rates and scaled scores for initial State certification or licensure of teachers or pass rates and average scores on valid and reliable teacher performance assessments
(A) the percentage of profession-ready teachers, principals or other school leaders, and other educators hired by the high-need local educational agency participating in the eligible partnership; (B) the percentage of profession-ready teachers, principals, and other educators hired by the high-need local educational agency who are members of underrepresented groups;
(C) as applicable, the percentage of profession-ready teachers hired by the high-need local educational agency who teach high-need academic subject areas
(E) the percentage of profession-ready teachers, principals or other school leaders, and other educators hired by the high-need local educational agency who teach in high-need schools
after 3 years in the role, receive ratings of effective or above in State school leader evaluation and support systems (as described in section 2014(c)(4)(B)(ii) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) or, if no such ratings are available, other comparable indicators of performance.
State-approved teacher and school leader preparation providers receiving federal assistance, or enrolling students who receive it, would publish annual reports to the state and public. Reports would cover assessment results, admissions grades, enrollment demographics, supervised practical training, program completion, accreditation, and low-performing designations. Providers requiring a valid and reliable teacher performance assessment could report its pass rate and average score instead of the specified licensing-test information.
Each teacher preparation or school leader preparation entity approved to operate teacher preparation or school leader preparation programs in the State and that receives or enrolls students receiving Federal assistance shall report annually to the State and the general public
In the case of an entity that requires a valid and reliable teacher performance assessment in order to complete the preparation program, the entity may submit in lieu of the information described in clause (i) the pass rate and average score of students taking the teacher performance assessment.
(i) The median grade point average and range of grade point averages for admitted students. (ii) The number of students in the entity disaggregated by race (as defined in section 153(a)(3) of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9543(a)(3))), ethnicity, and gender. (iii) The number of hours and types of supervised clinical preparation required for each program. (iv) The total number of students who have completed programs for certification or licensure disaggregated by subject area and by race
(C) Accreditation Whether the program or entity is accredited by a specialized accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary for accreditation of professional teacher or school leader education programs. (D) Designation as low-performing Which programs (if any) offered by the entity have been designated as low-performing by the State under section 207(a).
State reporting would include school leader preparation and information about admissions, practical training, program performance, and whether teacher preparation matches workforce needs. States using a valid and reliable teacher performance assessment could substitute its results for the specified licensing-test results. School leader reporting would include graduates serving as principals and their effectiveness after three years.
In the case of a State that has implemented a valid and reliable teacher performance assessment, the State may submit in lieu of the information described in clause (i) the pass rate and average score of students taking the teacher performance assessment
For each teacher and school leader preparation program in the State the following: (i) The programs’ admission rate and median grade point average and range of grade point averages for admitted students.
(iii) The number of hours and types of supervised clinical preparation required. (iv) Whether such program has been identified as low-performing, as designated by the State under section 207(a). (v) For each school leader preparation program in the State, the total number and percentage of program completers placed as principals who are rated as effective or above on the State school leader evaluation and support systems (as described in section 2101(c)(4)(B)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) or, if no such ratings are available, other comparable indicators of performance after three years of leading a school.
The relationship of the subject area and grade span of teachers graduated by the teacher preparation entity to the teacher workforce needs of the State.
Specified reporting breakdowns would not be required when they would identify an individual student. States would not have to report on program graduates who live outside the state. The bill would also add reporting items about how graduates' preparation relates to teacher shortages and how many teach in high-need schools.
except that such disaggregation shall not be required in a case in which the result would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student.
Nothing in this section shall require a State to report data on program completers who do not reside in such State.
(D) The relationship of the subject area and grade span of teachers graduated by teacher preparation entities across the States to identified teacher shortage areas. (E) The number and percentages of such graduates teaching in high-need schools.
Section 8 would replace both uses of “limited English proficient” in the existing teacher development section with “English learner.” The underlying teacher development requirements are not reproduced.
Section 206 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1022e) is amended by striking limited English proficient both places it appears and inserting English learner.
To receive funds under the Higher Education Act or title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, states would have to assess teacher and school leader preparation programs, identify at-risk and low-performing programs, and provide technical help. States would set performance criteria with stakeholder consultation and multiple measures, publish annual lists, and report program closures and their reasons.
In order to receive funds under this Act or under title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), a State shall conduct an assessment to identify at-risk and low-performing teacher and school leader preparation programs in the State and to assist such programs through the provision of technical assistance.
(A) provide the Secretary and the general public an annual list of low-performing teacher and school leader preparation programs and an identification of those programs at risk of being placed on such list, as applicable; (B) report any teacher and school leader preparation program that has been closed and the reasons for such closure;
shall be determined by the State in consultation with a representative group of community stakeholders
the State shall consider multiple measures and the information reported by teacher preparation entities under section 205.
States would establish an improvement period for at-risk programs and provide technical help for no more than three years. Programs without sufficient improvement would become low-performing. States would have to apply subsection (c)'s eligibility provisions, as determined by the state, within one year of that designation. Subsection (c) expressly addresses programs projected to close; the text does not fully explain how that condition relates to the requirement for all low-performing programs.
(2) establish a period of improvement and redesign (as established by the State) for programs identified as at-risk under subsection (a); (3) provide programs identified as at-risk under subsection (a) with technical assistance for a period of not longer than 3 years; (4) identify at-risk programs as low-performing if there is not sufficient improvement following the period of technical assistance provided by the State; and (5) subject low-performing programs to the provisions described in subsection (c) (as determined by the State) not later than 1 year after the date of such identification as a low-performing program.
(c) Termination of eligibility Any teacher or school leader preparation program that is projected to close—
A preparation program projected to close would lose eligibility for Department of Education professional development funding and could not make new awards under the cited title IV provision. It would have to provide transitional support, including remedial services if needed, for students enrolled in the year before closure. The state-function requirements would apply to traditional teacher preparation and alternative certification or licensing routes.
Any teacher or school leader preparation program that is projected to close— (1) shall be ineligible for any funding for professional development activities awarded by the Department; (2) may not be permitted to provide new awards under subpart 9 of part A of title IV; and (3) shall provide transitional support, including remedial services if necessary, for students enrolled in the program in the year prior to such closure.
The requirements of this section shall apply to both traditional teacher preparation programs and alternative routes to State certification and licensure programs.
Section 10 would narrow a cross-reference in the existing general provisions from sections 205 and 206 to section 205 alone. The supplied text does not reproduce the surrounding provision needed to explain its full practical effect.
Section 208(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1022g(a)) is amended by striking sections 205 and 206 and inserting section 205.
The Secretary of Education would establish an advisory committee to study entry into teaching and school leadership and recommend policies to Congress. Required representation would span educator unions and organizations, governments, colleges, civil rights and disability organizations, English learner advocates, parents, research groups, and other listed education organizations.
The Secretary of Education shall establish an Advisory Committee to carry out the elevation of the education profession study described in subsection (c) and make recommendations to Congress on the findings.
The Advisory Committee shall include representatives or advocates from the following categories: (A) Teacher unions. (B) School leader organizations. (C) State and local officials. (D) State educational agencies and local educational agencies. (E) Teacher and school leader advocacy organizations. (F) School administrator organizations. (G) Institutions of higher education, including colleges of teacher education. (H) Civil rights organizations. (I) Organizations representing students with disabilities. (J) Organizations representing English learners.
(K) Nonprofit organizations representing subject-fields, such as STEM Educator organizations, comprehensive literacy Educator organizations, and arts and humanities educator organizations. (L) Professional development organizations. (M) Educational technology organizations. (N) Nonprofit research organizations. (O) Organizations representing nontraditional pathways into teacher and school leader education. (P) Organizations representing parents.
The study would examine certification barriers, preparation practices, recruitment and retention, and how different state credentials affect educators who relocate. It would recommend rigorous expectations for state standards; this provision calls for recommendations rather than directly imposing those recommended standards.
(A) assess the state of policies and practices related to teacher and school leader education and entry into the profession including barriers to achieving certification and licensure, best practices in producing profession-ready teachers and school leaders, and recruitment and retention of teachers and school leaders in schools;
(C) review certification and credentialing practices throughout the Nation including minimum standards in each State, differences in types of credentials, and impact of different certification processes in each State for teachers and school leaders who relocate; and (D) recommend a comprehensive set of rigorous expectations for States standards to elevate the profession of teaching and to produce profession-ready teachers and school leaders prepared to educate diverse learners in inclusive educational settings.
The committee would submit an interim report within one year of its first meeting and a final report within three years. The Secretary would distribute study information in an accessible format and create an electronically accessible collection of state certification procedures and best practices within 180 days after enactment of this subsection.
(A) Not later than 1 year after the Advisory Committee’s first meeting, the Committee shall submit an interim report to the Secretary and to the authorizing committees detailing the methods of the study and progress in developing the set of comprehensive and rigorous expectations. (B) Not later than 3 years after the Advisory Committee’s first meeting, the Committee shall submit a final report to the Secretary and to the authorizing committees detailing the findings, recommendations, and suggested set of comprehensive and rigorous expectations.
the Secretary shall disseminate information found in the study in an accessible format to all stakeholders.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall produce an electronically accessible clearinghouse of State certification procedures and best State practices for producing and retaining profession-ready teachers and school leaders.
The authorization-of-appropriations amendment would renumber existing section 209 as section 210, replace “2009” with “2026,” and replace “two succeeding” with “5 succeeding.” This would revise language authorizing funding, rather than itself provide an appropriation. The underlying funding amount and full authorization sentence are not reproduced.
12. Authorization of appropriations Part A of title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1022 et seq.) is amended— (1) by redesignating section 209 as section 210; and (2) in section 210, as so redesignated— (A) by striking 2009 and inserting 2026; and (B) by striking two succeeding and inserting 5 succeeding.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated July 23, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on February 13, 2025. It does not establish what happened after those recorded actions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-07-23T08:08:11Z. 2025-02-13: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2025-02-13: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what appears in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places outside competitive or formula allocation was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; absent disclosure and committee materials prevent a broader determination of formal earmark status.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
Conditional eligibility exceptions warrant scrutiny as targeted benefits. This classification does not establish improper treatment or a guaranteed award.
Partnerships establishing a teacher or school leader residency not established with their prior grant could receive an additional grant during the referenced five-year period. The exception benefits that subset of prior grant recipients and directly supports the bill's residency policy; the surrounding existing grant restriction is not reproduced.
in subsection (a)(2), by striking five-year period and inserting five-year period, except such partnership may receive an additional grant during such period if such grant is used to establish a teacher residency program or principal or other school leader residency program if such residency program was not established with the prior grant
Schools that do not meet the ordinary high-need-school criteria could benefit from a discretionary designation as high-need for this title. The exception could allow such schools to satisfy the high-need-school requirement for participation in an eligible partnership, directly relating to the bill's grant policy. It requires an application from an eligible partnership and the Secretary's approval after considering specified poverty, achievement, and, for secondary schools, graduation information; designation and grant funding are not guaranteed.
The Secretary may, upon approval of an application submitted by an eligible partnership seeking a grant under this title, designate a school that does not qualify as a high-need school under subparagraph (A) as a high-need school for the purpose of this title.
The Secretary shall base the approval of an application for designation of a school under this clause on a consideration of the information required under clause (ii), and may also take into account other information submitted by the eligible partnership.
(I) the number and percentage of students attending such school who are— (aa) aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary; (bb) eligible for a free or reduced price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act; (cc) in families receiving assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act; or (dd) eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program; (II) information about the student academic achievement of students at such school; and (III) for a secondary school, the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for such school.
(A) shall include— (i) a high-need local educational agency; (ii) (I) a high-need school or a consortium of high-need schools served by the high-need local educational agency; or (II) as applicable, a high-need early childhood education program;
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 23, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI