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 · Mar 14, 2013
School Turnaround and Rewards Act of 2013 or the STAR Act of 2013 - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to replace the school support and recognition program with a blue ribbon schools program that allows each state to annually identify the top 5% of its schools as blue ribbon schools based on: (1) the percentage of their students who are on track to college and career readiness for English or language arts and mathematics; (2) in the case of high schools, their graduation rates; (3) the performance of their student subgroups; (4) student growth; and (5) school gains.
Allows states to provide each blue ribbon school with: (1) increased autonomy over its budget, staffing, and time; (2) flexibility in using funds provided under the ESEA for any purpose allowed under the ESEA; and (3) a monetary award, through its local educational agency (LEA), if it agrees to use it to improve student achievement and provide technical assistance to the lowest-achieving schools in the state that have characteristics similar to it.
Requires states to identify their lowest-achieving schools each year, which include: (1) the lowest-achieving 5% of public high schools and the lowest-achieving 5% of public elementary and secondary schools that are not high schools, and (2) the public high schools that have less than a 60% graduation rate. Requires each state to notify the parents of students of a school's status as one of its lowest-achieving schools.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires states to compile a list of its schools identified as lowest-achieving that: (1) receive assistance under part A of title I of the ESEA, (2) are public high schools at least 50% of whose students are low-income students, or (3) are public high schools that have less than a 60% graduation rate. Requires the list to be made publicly available.
Identifies as persistently low-achieving those schools that have been on that list for two consecutive school years (for the 2013-2014 school year, a school on the list the preceding school year shall be so identified). Continues their characterization as such for five years following their identification.
Allows states to apply to the Secretary of Education for a waiver from the requirement to identify schools as persistently low-achieving if they determine that all of their schools are performing at a satisfactory level.
Requires LEAs receiving part A funds to conduct a data-driven needs analysis of each of their persistently low-achieving schools and use it to select and implement the most appropriate school improvement strategy to improve student performance at each school. Identifies the school improvement strategies as the transformation model, the restart model, the school closure model, and the turnaround model. Lists the activities that each strategy entails. Requires all of the strategies to provide: (1) school staff with ongoing training and performance evaluations, and (2) students with instruction and instructional supports that meet their individual needs.
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out activities of national significance to support state and local efforts to turn around persistently low-performing schools.
People & committees
Sen. Hagan, Kay R. [D-NC] · D–NC
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.578 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.578 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.578 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.578 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.