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 · Jul 27, 2010
Investment in Quality School Leadership Act - Establishes a program of grants to consortia for professional development of superintendents, principals, and prospective superintendents and principals.
Directs the Secretary of Education to award such competitive grants to consortia to establish programs that serve a state or region and provide superintendents, principals, and prospective superintendents and principals, particularly those serving, or intending to serve, in high-poverty, low-performing school districts and schools, with ongoing, intensive professional development opportunities to improve their capacity to serve as effective leaders and successfully implement standards-based reforms. Requires a consortium, to be eligible to apply for such a grant, to include at least: (1) one local educational agency (LEA) serving a high concentration of children living in poverty; (2) one institution of higher education; and (3) one organization that does not usually provide educational services, but has the necessary expertise to provide professional development to school administrators. Allows such consortia also to include: (1) one or more additional LEAs; (2) state educational agencies; (3) for-profit organizations with expertise; and (4) public or private nonprofit organizations with expertise. Gives priority for awards to those consortia in which the participating LEA serves the highest concentration of children living in poverty. Sets forth required program activities and additional uses of grant funds. Requires grantees to provide 50% of the project's annual costs, in cash or in kind. Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) waive such matching requirement for applicants that serve low-income areas; and (2) reserve certain funds for technical assistance, evaluation, dissemination of information on effective programs, activities to encourage the spread and adoption of successful leadership development centers, and other national activities that support the programs.
People & committees
Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-18] · D–NY
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.5886 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.5886 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.5886 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.5886 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.