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 · May 23, 2013
Effective Teaching and Leading Act - Amends title II (Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to create a new Part E: Building School Capacity for Effective Teaching and Leadership.
Directs the Secretary of Education to allot grants to states for subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to improve teaching and school leadership through a system of teacher and principal induction, professional development, and evaluation that is developed, implemented, and evaluated in collaboration with local teacher, principal, and school leader organizations and preparation programs.
Requires LEAs to include in such system:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
a comprehensive, coherent, high quality formalized induction program for beginning teachers during their first two years of full-time employment;
high-quality effective professional development for teachers, principals, school librarians, and other school leaders at their lowest achieving schools;
a rigorous, transparent, and equitable teacher and principal evaluation system for all their schools;
ongoing high-quality support, coaching, and professional development for principals and other school leaders at their lowest achieving schools;
opportunities for teachers and school librarians to assume new school leadership roles and receive training regarding such roles; and
significant and sustainable stipends above a teacher's base salary for teachers that serve as mentors, instructional coaches, teacher leaders, or evaluators under these programs.
Directs LEA grantees to conduct a valid and reliable full population survey of teaching and learning, at the school and LEA level, the results of which are to inform and be integrated into such systems.
Requires a formal evaluation of each system to be conducted by the state, an institution of higher education, or an external agency and the results disseminated widely.
People & committees
Rep. Honda, Michael M. [D-CA-17] · 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.2173 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.2173 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.2173 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.2173 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.