Letter on Education Funding Sent to 
Each U.S. Senator

March 9, 2004

On behalf of the National Education Association's (NEA) 2.7 million members, we would like to express our strong concerns regarding the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) under consideration this week. The federal budget should reflect our nation's priorities, and improving the education of our nation's children must be a priority. NEA believes the proposed budget resolution fails to meet this standard. Therefore, we urge you to oppose the budget resolution as currently drafted and to support amendments that would increase funding for critical programs. Votes associated with these issues may be included in the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 108th Congress.

NEA is pleased that the proposed budget restores programs slated for elimination in the Administration's request. However, S. Con. Res. 95 continues to fall short in a number of critical areas. Specifically, the proposal falls $8.6 billion short of authorized funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, with the largest gap ($7.2 billion) affecting Title I. Similarly, the proposed $1 billion increase for IDEA only brings the federal funding share to just short of 20 percent of the cost of educating students with disabilities, less than half of the promised 40 percent. In addition, the proposal freezes funds for teacher quality, after-school, and bilingual education programs, with significant negative consequences. For example, the freeze on after-school programs would deny services to 1.3 million eligible students. 

Public schools are struggling to provide quality services to increased numbers of disadvantaged students and students with special needs, while also implementing accountability and testing mandates. At the same time, state budget crises are forcing dramatic cuts in state education funding. Other programs critical to the health and well-being of America's children and families are also facing dramatic cutbacks. Given these urgent needs, NEA supports the following amendments to S. Con. Res. 95:

• Murray amendment to fully fund No Child Left Behind programs. Almost 27,000 schools did not make adequate yearly progress under the achievement and accountability provisions of No Child Left Behind, with over 7,000 already designated as "needing improvement." These schools must show improvement quickly, but must do so under what are in many cases severe budget cutbacks. Most activities that schools will put in place to improve student achievement, such as after-school or summer school programs, enhanced and expanded professional development for teachers, or smaller class sizes, all require additional resources. Yet, current funding allows only 40 percent of the 15.2 million eligible students to be fully served by Title I.

In addition, a number of NCLB mandates and new requirements go into effect in fiscal year 2005, making full funding all the more critical. For example, all teachers will need to be "highly qualified" by the end of the 2005-06 school year and all paraprofessionals will have to meet new education requirements by January 2006. In addition, mandated annual reading and math tests must be in place for the 2005-06 school year. The Murray amendment will help schools and educators meet these requirements by fully funding NCLB at the authorized level of $34.3 billion.

• Nelson (FL) educator quality amendment. As noted above, NCLB requires all teachers to be "highly qualified" by the end of the 2005-06 school year and all paraprofessionals to meet new education requirements by 2006. According to the Center on Education policy, the percentage of teachers meeting the "highly qualified" definition ranges among states from a high of 98 percent to a low of 16 percent, with eight states reporting that at least a third of their teachers do not meet the definition. In addition, at least 24 states report that more than half of their paraprofessionals do not meet NCLB requirements, and 13 states report that two-thirds or more of their paraprofessionals do not meet the requirements.

The Teacher Quality program has received only a 2.8 percent increase since FY02. S. Con. Res. 95 would freeze funding for Teacher Quality grants just when the funding is most critical. The Nelson amendment would increase funding by $1 billion, for a total of $3.93 billion.

• Kennedy student aid amendment. Access to postsecondary education allows individuals to succeed in jobs with career potential and upward mobility. Expanding postsecondary education opportunities also helps ensure the well-educated workforce our nation needs to compete. As public universities and community colleges, which have long been seen as the "affordable" option, have to raise their tuition to make up for severe state budget cutbacks, the ability for low-income individuals to pay for college becomes an even greater challenge. The proposed budget resolution would freeze the Pell Grant maximum award at $4,050, the second consecutive freeze. The Kennedy amendment would increase the maximum award to $5,100, thereby helping lower-income students continue in postsecondary education by covering more of their expenses.

• Snowe/Dodd child care amendment. Low-income parents struggling to achieve independence should have access to quality child care to ensure that their children are safe and are receiving the necessary skills for later success in school. The Snowe/Dodd amendment would create a deficit-neutral fund that will allow Congress greater flexibility in providing child care through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.

• Baucus mandatory programs amendment. Mandatory programs such as Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit provide essential help to struggling families. The Baucus amendment would strike proposed language requiring a net cut of $3 billion from mandatory programs.

We also urge your support for any other amendments that would increase resources to help vulnerable children and families, including an increase for Head Start. Finally, NEA strongly opposes any amendment that would increase funding for some education programs by cutting or eliminating funding for others.

Again, we urge you to oppose S. Con. Res. 95 as currently drafted and to support the above-outlined and other amendments that direct resources to children and families.

Sincerely,

Diane Shust, Director of Government Relations

Randall Moody, Manager of Federal Policy and Politics