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 · Aug 2, 2011
Early Intervention for Graduation Success Authorization Act of 2011 - Amends the School Dropout Prevention program under part H of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Replaces the existing grant program with a program awarding competitive, renewable, five-year early intervention grants to states and, through them, subgrants to partnerships between local educational agencies (LEAs) and early childhood education providers that serve a high percentage of students who bear the risk factors for dropping out of school.
Requires state grantees to: (1) create and periodically update a research-based Statewide Graduation Success Plan addressing the factors associated with the risk of not graduating from high school; (2) provide technical assistance to subgrantees; and (3) implement a Statewide Dropout Early Warning System to identify and direct effective services to children, from birth through elementary school, who are at risk of not graduating from high school.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permits states to use grant funds to: (1) provide tuition assistance to students who agree to teach in an early childhood education program, (2) increase and monitor the quality of early childhood education, (3) design and implement a progression of aligned performance standards across all domains of learning from prekindergarten through postsecondary education, and (4) expand access to high-quality early childhood education for children most at risk of low proficiency in school.
Requires subgrantees to: (1) use the Statewide Dropout Early Warning System to implement research-based, individualized interventions for at-risk students; (2) develop and implement individual learning plans for each at-risk early childhood or elementary school student; (3) provide teacher training; (4) integrate community and family support services; and (5) foster students' high expectations and improve their chances for academic success.
Reauthorizes the program through FY2017.
People & committees
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK] · R–AK
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5263)
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 14, 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.1495 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.1495 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.1495 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.1495 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.