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 1, 2007
No Child Left Behind Enhancement Act - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to alter requirements for adequate yearly progress (AYP) assessments of student groups by: (1) lowering, from 95% to 90%, the minimum percentage of students in each group in a school that must take such assessments; (2) allowing the fractional counting of students who are in more than one group, for each such group; (3) allowing states to treat as proficient or advanced specified scores on alternate assessments for disabled students and those not proficient in English; and (4) allowing states to use alternative methods of defining AYP.
Revises criteria for local educational agency (LEA) identification of schools needing improvement. Declares that only those meet such criteria that fail AYP standards, for two consecutive school years (as under current law), in the same subject for the same group of students.
Revises eligibility criteria for school transfers after a school is identified as needing improvement. Declares that only failing students in the failing group, instead of all students in such a school, may transfer. Allows such schools to provide students with supplemental services rather than transfers during that school year.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires states to develop procedures allowing LEAs to register complaints concerning approved supplemental service providers or those seeking the state's approval.
Considers new middle or secondary school special education teachers to be highly qualified if, in addition to having a bachelor degree and high competence in their subject area, they have obtained a state special education certificate qualifying them to teach in the state.
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: Feb 10, 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 S.1913 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.1913 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.1913 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.1913 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.