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 · Apr 25, 2013
School Principal Recruitment and Training Act of 2013 - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a principal recruitment and training grant program awarding renewable, matching grants to states, local educational agencies (LEAs), and states and LEAs that partner with each other or with nonprofit organizations or institutions of higher education to recruit, prepare, place, and support principals in eligible schools.
Defines "eligible schools" as high-need schools, persistently low-achieving schools, achievement gap schools, schools with middle grades that feed students to high schools with low graduation rates, and rural schools served by high-need LEAs.
Requires grantees to work with experts and stakeholders to develop, during the first year of a grant, a leadership training program for principals, mentors, and other school leaders that prepares and supports them in leading effective school reform efforts in persistently low-achieving schools.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires grantees to use the grants, after that first year, to: (1) implement their leadership training program; (2) ensure that their training program is informed, on an ongoing basis, by consultations with experts and stakeholders and by tracking the performance of program graduates; (3) select cohorts of experienced principals to lead school reform efforts in persistently low-achieving schools; (4) support and encourage interaction among principals who have completed the training program; and (5) disseminate information to principals, mentors, and other school leaders engaging in reform efforts in persistently low-achieving schools.
Makes grant renewal decisions dependent on the Secretary of Education's evaluation of the extent to which the principals recruited, prepared, placed, or supported by the grantee have improved school-level student outcomes in eligible schools.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) evaluate the programs funded by this Act, and (2) identify and disseminate research and best practices related to those programs.
People & committees
Rep. Davis, Susan A. [D-CA-53] · 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.
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.1736 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.1736 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.1736 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.1736 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.