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 8, 2007
Improving Supplemental Education by Improving Parental Awareness Act - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require local educational agencies (LEAs) to make supplemental educational services (SES) available to needy students at the beginning of the school year following a school's identification as needing improvement for failing for two consecutive years to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward state academic performance standards. (Currently, such services are provided after an additional year of failure.)
Expands the availability of school improvement funds for SES.
Requires LEAs to: (1) provide parents with information concerning SES instructors; (2) choose SES providers using a fair, open, and objective process to operate at school sites for, at most, a reasonable fee; and (3) provide logistical information to providers and outreach to parents.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs states to: (1) use valid and reliable methods based on nationally recognized professional standards to monitor SES providers; (2) establish fair removal procedures for providers subject to repeated complaints; (3) assist LEAs with the SES student enrollment process; (4) ensure that such process is fair to all SES providers; (5) if appropriate, require LEAs to use different methods to recruit SES eligible students; (6) if appropriate, provide incentives to rural SES providers; and (7) ensure that disabled and limited English proficient (LEP) children have a choice of at least two SES providers.
Adds to the annual reporting requirement of states and LEAs receiving school improvement funds to require information regarding spending on, and student participation in, school choice and SES.
Requires the Secretary of Education's assessment of SES effectiveness to employ scientifically-based criteria and weigh the participation of disabled and LEP children.
Makes LEAs identified as needing improvement or corrective action ineligible as SES providers.
People & committees
Rep. McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [R-CA-25] · R–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 Labor.
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.2203 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.2203 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.2203 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.2203 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.