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 · Aug 1, 2007
Education Assessment Technical Corrections Act - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 to except teachers in hard to staff areas from the requirement that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects within a state be highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Requires teachers in hard to staff areas, instead, to satisfy at least 80% of the requirements to be highly qualified by the end of the 2007-2008 school year, and satisfy all of them by the end of the following school year. Requires states and local educational agencies (LEAs) whose teachers do not meet such requirements to use all of their funds under Title II of the Act to achieve compliance.
Revises requirements for assessments of student groups in measuring the adequate yearly progress (AYP) of the state, and of all public schools and LEAs in the state, toward enabling all public elementary school and secondary school students to meet the state's student academic achievement standards.
Provides that a student group which has failed to meet or exceed achievement standards may satisfy assessment requirements if it met such standards in the immediately preceding year.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the testing of disabled students at their instructional level, rather than grade level, provided they show progress in accordance with individualized education programs.
Permits states to change the method of counting students who are in more than one group.
Revises the sanctions for schools which fail an assessment by reason of a group of no more than four students. Changes the sanction from designation as needing improvement to mandatory redirection of funds to the needs of such a group.
Requires the Secretary of Education to make recommendations to Congress for increasing the percentage of limited English proficient students and disabled students who meet or exceed state academic achievement standards.
Directs the Secretary, during the 2007-2008 school year, to continue to study growth models and allow more states and LEAs to use them to achieve AYP.
People & committees
Rep. Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL-10] · R–IL
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1701-1702)
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.3292 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.3292 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.3292 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.3292 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.