Stimulus Bill Promotes Stable, Adequate Funding
The $789 billion federal stimulus bill, which was passed
by Congress last weekend, allocates roughly $100 billion
for educational purposes. This figure is almost double
the U.S. Department of Education’s $59.2 billion
discretionary budget---and gives promise to education
advocates that the Obama administration will live up
to its commitment to reform and improve education in
the United States. Shortly after the compromise was
announced, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s
office issued a statement emphasizing the importance
of “strategic investments in education,”
stating that education is “one of the best ways
to help America become more productive and competitive.”
The stimulus bill, technically entitled the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, calls for $53.6
billion to be put toward state fiscal stabilization,
of which $39.5 billion is allocated for education (k-12
and higher education), and the remaining $8.8 may be
used to avert budget cuts in education, or for other
basic state services, as determined by the Governors.
The bill identifies funding stability and adherence
to scheduled formula increases (presumably including
those required by court orders or legislative responses
to adequacy litigations) as priorities.
Specifically, to be eligible for stabilization funds,
the state must maintain support for elementary, secondary,
and public postsecondary education at least at the levels
of fiscal year 2006, and the funding received must first
be used to restore state aid to school district’s
under the State’s primary elementary and secondary
education funding formulae to the greater of the fiscal
year 2008 or 2009 level in each of fiscal years 2009,
2010 and 2011; where applicable, existing formula increases
for elementary and secondary education for fiscal years
2010 and 2011 are to be implemented, allowing the funds
to be used to permit the phase-in of previously enacted
equity and adequacy adjustments. The strong action taken
by the federal government to channel such a considerable
sum of money into state education stabilization bolsters
the legal argument that children’s constitutional
right to an “adequacy” education includes
both adequate and stable funding.
The Stabilization funding also is geared toward inducing
states to address seriously a number of major issues
that have arisen under the federal No Child Left Behind
Act. Thus, in its application for funding, the states
must provide assurances that they will address four
key areas: 1) achieving equity in teacher distribution;
2) establishing a longitudinal data system; 3) enhancing
the quality of assessments relating to English language
learners and students with disabilities and improving
state academic content standards; and 4) ensuring compliance
with corrective actions required for low-performing
schools. (Details on existing compliance problems in
each of these areas are discussed in Michael A. Rebell
and Jessica R. Wolff, Moving Every Child Ahead: From
NCLB Hype to Meaningful Educational Opportunity ( 2008)).
For specific details on the amount of funding for which
each state is eligible under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, see the recent report
of The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
In addition to providing stabilization money, the Act
calls for a $13 billion increase in Title I funding,
a $12.2 billion increase for the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), and $2.1 billion for Head Start
and Early Head Start programs. The U.S. Secretary of
Education may waive or modify existing maintenance of
effort requirements. The Secretary will also have a
$5 billion incentive grant fund to be awarded in 2010
to states that have made progress on initiatives like
improving equitable distribution of teachers, establishing
longitudinal data systems, and enhancing assessments
for English language learners and students with disabilities.
Some Critics question the sustainability of programs
after the 2-year infusion of federal stimulus money
runs dry, and are concerned about the expanded federal
role in education that will accompany the act. Others,
however, see positive possibilities in the enhanced
federal role. Jack Jennings, president of the Center
of Education Policy was quoted in Education Week as
stating that the Act “not only makes it more legitimate
for the federal government to ask for accountability,
it also [opens up] the questions of what should the
feds be doing to help schools.”
|
