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 · Sep 7, 2006
Improving the Quality of and Access to Supplemental Educational Services Act, or the IQ Act - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require local educational agencies (LEAs) to make supplemental educational services (SES) (after-school tutoring programs) available to disadvantaged students by the beginning of the first full school year, rather than after an additional school year, after their school has been identified as needing improvement because of having failed, for two consecutive years, to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) pursuant to state academic performance standards.
Directs each state to: (1) establish a system that evaluates each SES provider primarily by the extent to which the provider improves the academic performance of all students receiving SES, even those not in a grade subject to a state academic assessment; (2) establish a process for removing providers subject to repeat complaints; (3) publicize data concerning SES evaluations, cost, attendance, and timeliness; (4) assist LEAs in creating a streamlined enrollment process and providing timely services; (5) provide LEAs with a choice of providers capable of serving children who are disabled or have limited English proficiency; and (6) offer incentives, where appropriate, to providers to service rural areas.
Requires an LEA to: (1) permit approved and successful SES providers access, at a fair rent, to its public schools if other external groups are given such access; (2) ensure that the SES registration process is uncomplicated and easily accessible to parents; (3) report to the state on SES spending and progress toward increasing student participation; and (4) ensure the beginning of SES as soon as possible after the beginning of the school year.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary of Education to study the impact differences in the provision of SES, the use of highly qualified teachers as tutors, and provider incentives have on improving student performance and SES attendance.
Allows LEAs identified as needing improvement and schools not so identified to provide SES.
Prohibits providers from offering material selection incentives to schools, LEAs, states, parents, or students.
People & committees
Sen. Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY] · D–NY
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 S9131)
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 15, 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.3869 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.3869 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.3869 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.3869 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.