FY 2026 Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program (TSL, 84.374A)
Closed FY 2026 federal competition for eligible education agencies and partnerships developing or expanding performance-based compensation systems and human capital management systems for educators in high-need schools.
FY 2026 Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program (TSL, 84.374A)
The FY 2026 Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program (TSL), Assistance Listing 84.374A, was a competitive federal grant competition administered by the U.S. Department of Labor on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education. The Department of Education’s official program page now lists the application status as Closed. The June 9, 2026 application deadline has passed, and the official page does not announce a subsequent cycle. This page is therefore a historical reference for the FY 2026 competition, not an open application listing.
The program supported eligible education agencies and partnerships that wanted to develop, implement, improve, or expand comprehensive performance-based compensation systems (PBCS) or human capital management systems (HCMS). The target population was teachers, principals, and other school leaders, especially those serving in high-need schools. The federal purpose was not to fund an isolated bonus or a general professional-development series. It was to help education systems connect educator evaluation, support, career opportunities, compensation, staffing decisions, and student outcomes in a coherent operating model.
FY 2026 status and key facts
| Attribute | FY 2026 verified information |
|---|---|
| Program | Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program (TSL) |
| Assistance Listing | 84.374A |
| Funding opportunity | DOL-OESE-33844 |
| Competition status | Closed |
| Application deadline | June 9, 2026, at 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time |
| Estimated available funds | $60,000,000 |
| Estimated number of awards | 20 |
| Estimated award range | $500,000 to $8,500,000 |
| Estimated average award | $4,300,000 per performance period |
| Project period | Up to 36 months |
| Cost sharing | Non-federal contribution equal to 50% of the grant amount, in cash or in kind |
| Intergovernmental review deadline | August 30, 2026 |
| Official program page | U.S. Department of Education |
The amount and award figures are estimates in the FY 2026 application notice. The notice says that additional awards may be made in later years from the list of unfunded applications, subject to available funds and application quality. That possibility does not reopen the closed application window and should not be treated as a new deadline. The notice also discusses possible renewal awards for approved projects, but renewal decisions belong to the federal agency and are not a new public application round.
What TSL was designed to support
TSL focused on systems that influence how schools recruit, support, evaluate, retain, and advance educators. A qualifying project could develop or improve a PBCS, an HCMS, or both. The program description connects performance-based compensation with gains in student academic achievement, classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year, and incentives for educators who take on additional responsibilities or leadership roles.
An HCMS can include decisions about educator preparation, recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, compensation, professional development, tenure, and promotion. A PBCS is not simply a discretionary bonus pool. The proposal needed to explain the system’s measures, decision rules, support structures, and safeguards. If evaluation and support activities were part of an HCMS, the notice required clear and fair measures of educator performance, including demonstrated improvement in student academic achievement, along with ongoing, differentiated, targeted, and personalized support and feedback.
The official program page gives examples of the kinds of work TSL has funded: teacher career pathways, teacher leadership positions, instructional leadership roles, incentives that attract and retain effective educators in high-need schools, leadership development for teacher leaders and principals, and salary structures based on effectiveness. Job-embedded professional development and peer-to-peer coaching can support the model when they are connected to the broader compensation or human-capital strategy.
The second absolute priority required projects to concentrate their activities on teachers, principals, or other school leaders serving in high-need schools. Applicants had to identify participating schools, show which schools met the high-need definition, and provide current school-level data supporting those designations. At least a majority of the participating schools had to be high-need schools. A proposal that described a district-wide training program without a clear high-need-school focus would not meet the competition’s core structure.
Eligibility
The FY 2026 notice identified four eligible applicant paths:
- An LEA, including a charter school that is an LEA, or a consortium of LEAs.
- A state educational agency or another state agency designated by the chief executive of a state to participate.
- The Bureau of Indian Education.
- A partnership consisting of one or more of those eligible agencies and at least one nonprofit or for-profit entity.
For this program, the notice treats schools funded by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education as LEAs under the cited Elementary and Secondary Education Act definition. An LEA could receive a TSL grant, whether individually or through a consortium or partnership, only twice under the statutory limitation described in the notice. That award-history check was part of eligibility review and should have been completed before a proposal was built around a district or charter applicant.
A partnership could not rely on an informal letter of support. The notice required the group to follow the procedures in 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and submit an agreement describing the activities each member would perform. The agreement also bound each member to the statements and assurances made in the application. Nonprofits, for-profit organizations, consultants, and other external organizations therefore generally needed an eligible LEA, SEA, designated state agency, or BIE entity in the applicant structure rather than applying independently under the TSL program.
Funding and match requirements
The FY 2026 application instructions estimated $60 million in available funds, 20 awards, award amounts from $500,000 to $8.5 million, and an average award of $4.3 million per performance period. The estimated project period was up to 36 months. These figures were planning estimates rather than guaranteed award amounts, so an applicant needed a budget that was credible at the requested level and proportionate to the number of schools, educators, and implementation stages it proposed to serve.
The match requirement was substantial. Each recipient had to provide non-federal resources equal to 50% of the federal grant amount. The contribution could be cash or in kind, but the application budget had to identify the federal request, the matching contribution, and the allocation of costs across the project. The instructions express the same relationship by stating that the federal award is calculated by multiplying total project cost by 0.67. Applicants also had to comply with the supplement-not-supplant requirement and use a restricted indirect-cost rate when indirect costs were charged.
That requirement affected project design, not just the final budget page. A district or partnership needed to identify the source, timing, valuation, and controls for the non-federal contribution. It also needed to ensure that proposed grant costs added capacity instead of replacing federal or state funds that would otherwise have paid for the same activities. A proposal with an attractive compensation model but no reliable match plan would have had a serious implementation risk.
FY 2026 application process
The FY 2026 competition was published on April 8, 2026. The official timeline listed an optional intent to apply for April 22, 2026, sent by email to [email protected] with the subject line specified by the Department. The application transmittal deadline was June 9, 2026, at 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The notice listed August 30, 2026 as the deadline for intergovernmental review and estimated award announcements by September 30, 2026. These dates describe the closed FY 2026 round; they are not future application dates.
Applications were submitted electronically through Grants.gov. Before submission, an applicant needed an active SAM.gov registration and a Unique Entity ID, followed by an active Grants.gov account and authorized organization representative access. The instructions warned that SAM.gov registration could take several weeks and that a newly active SAM registration might take 24 to 48 hours to become available in Grants.gov. Applicants used Grants.gov Workspace to complete and submit the package, then had to confirm that the submission was received and validated before the deadline. A rejected upload needed to be successfully resubmitted before the deadline.
The official Department of Education page listed the principal forms and attachments for the package. These included ED Form 424, the ED project objectives and performance measures form, the lobbying form and instructions, Standard Form LLL when applicable, the required response to Section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act, and the EED Budget Narrative Template. The full application instructions and the FY 2026 Notice of Funding Opportunity remained the controlling documents for exact form requirements, page limits, and required narrative content.
Because this competition is closed, organizations planning a future TSL proposal should treat those steps as preparation guidance only. They should check the official TSL page for a newly posted notice before reusing any FY 2026 date, form, priority, or award estimate. No next cycle is announced on the official page as of this page’s review.
What a strong application needed to show
The project narrative needed to address both absolute priorities. First, it had to propose the development, implementation, improvement, or expansion of a PBCS or HCMS in collaboration with teachers, principals, other school leaders, and members of the public. Second, it had to concentrate the proposed work in high-need schools and provide the required school list and supporting data. The narrative also needed to explain how educators would receive meaningful support and feedback rather than being judged by a compensation formula without a path to improvement.
A practical proposal structure would have started with a baseline: educator vacancies, retention, placement patterns, evaluation results, leadership gaps, current compensation rules, and student outcomes in the participating high-need schools. It would then have described the proposed system, who would make each decision, how educators and community members would participate, how data would be protected and reviewed, and how the system would be tested before wider adoption.
The performance plan needed measures that could be reported over time. The application instructions included measures related to student growth, the use of evaluation ratings in recruitment and retention decisions, and educators receiving performance-based compensation based on individual evaluation ratings. A credible plan would have specified the baseline, data owner, reporting schedule, comparison or improvement target, and method for checking fairness and consistency.
Applicants also needed to address practical constraints. Compensation changes can interact with collective bargaining, board approvals, payroll systems, state law, evaluation policy, and local trust. A staged rollout, documented governance, educator feedback, and a process for correcting unreliable or inequitable measures would have made the proposal more credible. External partners could add research, implementation, or evaluation capacity, but the eligible public education entity needed to retain clear responsibility for compliance and project delivery.
Historical-reference guidance
The FY 2026 round is not accepting applications. Do not use the June 9, 2026 deadline as a current submission date, and do not assume that the August 30, 2026 intergovernmental-review date creates an extension. The official Department of Education page identifies the competition as closed, and it does not announce a next cycle. This entry remains useful for organizations comparing past federal priorities, estimating the scale of a potential future proposal, or preparing a district-partnership model before a new notice appears.
For the authoritative status, future applicants should begin at the official program page and then read the new Notice of Funding Opportunity and application instructions linked from it. Confirm the new cycle’s eligibility, award estimates, match formula, priorities, forms, project period, and deadline before changing a proposal or treating the opportunity as open.