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 · Oct 17, 2011
Educational Accountability and State Flexibility Act - Amends the school improvement program under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require each state to establish a multi-tiered accountability system that places each public school in a tier that reflects the state's annual assessment of the extent to which the school needs improvement. (This replaces the current system of assessing schools as needing improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.)
Requires states to weigh school needs by considering the extent to which: (1) schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward state academic performance standards for students overall and for poor, minority, disabled, and limited English proficient student subgroups in particular; (2) schools are progressing toward the required graduation rate; and (3) a school's students are growing academically.
Requires distinct tiers for schools: (1) making AYP; (2) nearly making AYP, achieving student academic growth, and improving their graduation rate; (3) not making AYP for a significant number of categories of students; and (4) not making AYP for multiple years.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Lists minimum consequences for schools placed into each of these tiers: consequences that range from requiring states to recognize successful schools, to requiring local educational agencies (LEAs) to implement alternative school governance models or school improvement strategies based on a specified system of support model.
Denies the Secretary of Education any authority to approve or disapprove of a state's multi-tiered accountability system.
Requires state-approved providers of supplemental educational services to demonstrate success in serving any category of students at schools that do not make AYP. Authorizes LEAs to negotiate performance-based contracts with providers of supplemental educational services.
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.
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.1725 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.1725 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.1725 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.1725 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.