PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 9, 2015
Local Leadership in Education Act
Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to prohibit a federal officer or employee, either directly or indirectly through grants, contracts, or other cooperative agreements under ESEA, from:
mandating, directing, or controlling a state's, local educational agency's (LEA's), or school's academic standards, curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of state or local resources;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
mandating a state or subdivision to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under ESEA;
incentivizing a state's, LEA's, or school's adoption of any specific academic standards or a specific curriculum or program of instruction;
conditioning the availability of financial support on such an entity's adoption of specific instructional content, academic standards, or curricula, or on the administration of assessments or tests, even if such requirements are specified in ESEA; or
mandating or requiring states to administer assessments or tests to students.
Requires the school improvement program under part A of title I of ESEA to be carried out without regard to any requirement that a state carry out academic assessments or that LEAs and elementary and secondary schools make adequate yearly progress.
Prohibits the Secretary of Education from conditioning the provision of a statutory or regulatory waiver under ESEA on a state, LEA, Indian tribe, or school: (1) getting their academic standards approved by the federal government, or (2) administering assessments or tests to students. Makes that prohibition applicable to future and previously issued waivers.
Amends the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit a department, agency, officer, or federal employee from: (1) exercising any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum (including its development), program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system; or (2) requiring the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.
Amends the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to prohibit the use of Race to the Top funds to develop, pilot test, field test, implement, administer, or distribute any assessment or testing materials.
People & committees
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID] · R–ID
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.
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 12, 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.144 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.144 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.144 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.144 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.