Letter to the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee on the Mark-up of the FY 2011 Education Funding Bill
July 14, 2010
On behalf of the National Education Association's (NEA) 3.2 million members, we would like to express our views on the FY 2011 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill in advance of this week’s subcommittee mark-up.
NEA believes that, particularly in these troubling economic times, investing in education makes both good fiscal sense and good public policy. Funding targeted to quality public schools will see the greatest return on taxpayer money and will strengthen the entire economy. In fact, research shows an inextricable link between investment in education and economic strength.
Today, students’ success in school depends in large part on the zip code where they live and the educators to whom they are assigned. Poverty is still a serious issue in this country, and unfortunately we still have schools that lack resources, committed and effective leadership, and enough great teachers and education support professionals to reach every student. Schools in struggling communities too often have high dropout rates, and the cycle of poverty continues.
Yet, the funding levels proposed in the Administration’s budget for core, foundational programs such as Title I and IDEA are considerably less than what is necessary. These programs are critical in providing necessary and sustained funds to schools serving disadvantaged students and special populations. Increased federal investment in these core programs is particularly urgent in this economy. State budgets typically lag any national economic recovery by a year or longer and, as a result, budget gaps are continuing into fiscal year 2011 and beyond. For many states, FY2011 marks the third consecutive year in which budget balancing actions will be needed to close sizable budget gaps.
We urge the Subcommittee to:
- Reject the Administration’s overemphasis on competitive grant programs. The Administration’s FY 2011 budget request calls for historic education increases but all of those increases were slated for competitive funding programs. While federal formula grant programs are always important, they have never been more so than in today’s difficult economic climate. Competitive grants simply cannot ensure that children in poverty receive the essential resources for success. In contrast, formula-driven federal aid ensures that resources get to where they are needed the most, and offers stability in an otherwise rapidly deteriorating fiscal environment, particularly for high-need urban schools and small, rural districts. A competitive system serves only to create funding winners and losers, rather than providing all districts the resources they need. Indeed, many districts would simply be unable to compete, as they do not have the staff to write grant proposals.
- Increase funding for IDEA/special education to keep us on a path toward the promised 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for every child in special education. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act got us closer than ever to meeting the federal government’s commitment, but those funding levels are not sustained beyond 2011. IDEA is essential, yet it remains badly underfunded, placing further strain on state and local budgets already at historic shortfalls.
- Increase funding for Title I state grants to help ensure disadvantaged students the assistance they need to succeed. Title I services are essential to closing achievement gaps. Yet, this proven program remains underfunded and unable to serve all eligible students. Addressing the continued inequities and opportunity gaps facing children in poverty requires increasing funding for this core program.
We also urge increases for other critical programs, including Title II (teacher quality state grants), after-school programs, rural education, and English Language Learner grants.
Thank you for your consideration of our views on these important issues.
Director of Government Relations
Manager of Federal Advocacy