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 · Apr 14, 2011
Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act of 2011 - Authorizes the Secretary of Education to award competitive matching grants to states to enable them to award competitive subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) or partnerships between LEAs and other public or nonprofit entities to plan and implement expanded learning time initiatives at high-need schools that they serve.
Requires such initiatives to: (1) increase the total number of school hours each year at participant schools by at least 300 hours, compared to the school hours per year that are standard for comparable schools served by their LEAs; and (2) expand learning time for all students in all grade levels in such schools, though on-site prekindergarten programs may be excepted.
Directs states to give subgrant priority to entities that: (1) serve a high percentage of students from low-income families; (2) include a nonprofit community-based organization experienced in expanding learning opportunities or helping schools redesign their educational programs; (3) take certain steps to facilitate collaboration between high-need schools and community partners; and (4) will coordinate this Act's funding with other federal, state, local, and private funding to implement high-quality expanded learning time initiatives in high-need schools.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permits the Secretary to: (1) award planning and implementation grants directly to a partnership that serves more that one area in more than one state, and (2) provide technical assistance to grantees and subgrantees in developing and implementing expanded learning time initiatives.
Requires the Secretary to contract with an independent organization with expertise in school improvement, program evaluation, and measurement to evaluate this Act's program and provide technical assistance to grantees and subgrantees in collecting data and evaluating their programs pursuant to specified performance measures.
People & committees
Sen. Harkin, Tom [D-IA] · D–IA
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 S2529-2530)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.851 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.851 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.851 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.851 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.