20 U.S.C. § 6801

Authorization of appropriations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 20 CasesGoogle Scholar

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subchapter—(1) $756,332,450 for fiscal year 2017;(2) $769,568,267 for fiscal year 2018;(3) $784,959,633 for fiscal year 2019; and(4) $884,959,633 for fiscal year 2020.(Pub. L. 89–10, title III, § 3001, as added Pub. L. 107–110, title III, § 301, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1689; amended Pub. L. 114–95, title III, § 3002, Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 1953.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 6801, Pub. L. 89–10, title III, § 3101, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, § 101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3636, set out Short Title of prior subchapter III as the Technology for Education Act of 1994, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 107–110.

A prior section 3001 of Pub. L. 89–10 was classified to section 3021 of this title, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 89–10 by Pub. L. 103–382.

Amendments

2015—Pub. L. 114–95 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section consisted of subsecs. (a) to (c) relating to authorizations of appropriations, conditions on effectiveness of parts A and B of this subchapter, and references to parts A and B of this subchapter.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–95 effective Dec. 10, 2015, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 114–95, set out as a note under section 6301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Sch. Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Sec'y of US Dep't of Educ., 584 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sch. Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Sec'y of US Dep't of Educ., 584 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2009). “20 U.S.C. § 6801 (emphasis added). With the Act’s accountability system in place, these goals have a chance of success; without them, they have no chance of success, risking a return to (or a continuation of) a system of lower standards for higher-poverty schools.”

Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. United States (D. Maryland 2025). “61-58 ¶ 12 Plaintiffs also contend that “Defendants have abolished at least one program office outright—[OELA], which administers the congressionally mandated program to support English learners, see 20 U.S.C. §§ 6801–71 (ESEA 11.) Defendants acknowledge that on June 30, 2025,…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.