PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S372-373)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 22, 2001
Dropout Prevention Act - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to set forth provisions for assistance to address school dropout problems, including a coordinated national strategy and a national school dropout prevention initiative.Authorizes the Secretary of Education, under the strategy, to: (1) collect systematic data on the participation of individuals, disaggregated by specified factors, in certain Federal programs; (2) establish and consult with an interagency working group; (3) carry out a national recognition and awards program for public middle and secondary schools that have made extraordinary progress in lowering school dropout rates; (4) conduct, through a non-Federal entity, a capacity building and design initiative to increase the types of proven strategies for dropout prevention and reentry that address the needs of an entire school population rather than a subset of students; and (5) provide support to eligible entities to enable them to provide training, materials, development, and staff assistance to schools assisted under the strategy.Directs the Secretary, under the initiative, to make allotments to States to award grants to public middle schools or secondary schools with school dropout rates in the highest one-third in the State, for startup and implementation costs of school dropout prevention program authorized activities. Sets forth initiative program requirements relating to: (1) school strategies and capacity building; (2) selection of schools; (3) school dissemination activities; (4) LEA progress incentives for schools; (5) school dropout rate calculation; (6) school reporting and accountability; and (7) SEA responsibilities for uniform data collection regarding school dropouts, attendance neutral funding policies, and suspension and expulsion policies.
People & committees
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S372-373)
Introduced in Senate
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: Aug 19, 2025. 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 S.102 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 S.102 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 S.102 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 S.102 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.