Submitted before the Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health & Human Services, Education and Related Agencies

April 16, 2008

The Federal Role: Quality Teachers in Every Classroom

Chairman Harkin and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the important topic of teacher quality, including the federal role and specifically what the Congress can do through the education appropriations bill to help states, schools, and teachers ensure that every child has a quality teacher while also improving the working conditions necessary to foster and support quality teaching.

I am John Wright, president of the 33,000-member Arizona Education Association (AEA), one of the state affiliates of the 3.2 million-member National Education Association (NEA). I am speaking here today on behalf of both AEA and NEA. In addition to serving as AEA president, I am also president of the National Council of State Education Associations, which is the organization within NEA that represents the state leaders of all 50 NEA state affiliates. I also serve on NEA's Professional Standards and Practices committee which develops and makes recommendations regarding NEA policy on teacher quality issues. And most importantly I have been a classroom teacher for over 20 years, starting in Connecticut in 1985, and then moving in 1990 to Arizona where I taught elementary and middle school in the Window Rock Unified School District on the Navajo Nation.

Improving the quality of teaching in America's schools continues to be a central focus of school improvement and educational reform efforts. This is because teacher quality matters. Teachers do not enter the classroom as accomplished professionals — they increase their knowledge and skills with increased experience, and, as a result, effect greater student learning. Simply put, good teachers produce good students.¹ In fact, research continues to show that having a good teacher is a key to students' success. The National Education Association understands and values this and is a leading voice that supports and promotes quality teaching. Throughout its long history, the NEA has advanced the profession of teaching and works toward a goal of a qualified teacher in every classroom.

In my statement I first review NEA's policies on teacher quality, next highlight some of our initiatives to improve teacher quality, and finally focus on the federal role.

What Constitutes Quality?

In the last five years, several bodies of research, most notably What Matters Most: Teaching and America's Future, published by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF),² have found that teacher quality is the single most important factor in student success. Several other researchers echo these findings.³ But just what constitutes quality? Does more and better preparation make a difference? NCTAF believes it does, advocating for preparation that focuses on subject matter expertise, knowledge and understanding of how children learn and develop, and the use of a wide range of teaching strategies. The NEA agrees.

In 2007, NEA defined (in broad terms) what characterizes a quality teacher: one who knows his/her subject matter; one knows how to teach that subject matter; and one who understands how students learn and what it takes to reach them (See Appendix A ). NEA believes that defining a quality teacher can best be achieved using a set of principles and standards, combined with a process of preparation, licensure, support, and assessment. To illustrate these principles, standards and processes more clearly, NEA developed its "Principles of Professional Practice" that define the knowledge, skills, and dispositions a quality teacher should possess:

A Quality Teacher…

• Designs and facilitates instruction that incorporates the students' developmental levels, skills, and interests with content knowledge;
• Develops collaborative relationships and partners with colleagues, families, and communities focused on meaningful and deep learning;
• Provides leadership and advocacy for students, quality education, and the education profession;
• Demonstrates in-depth content and professional knowledge;
• Participates in ongoing professional learning as an individual and within the professional learning community;
• Utilizes multiple and varied forms of assessment and student data to inform instruction, assess student learning, and drive school improvement efforts;
• Establishes environments conducive to effective teaching and learning;
• Integrates cultural competence and an understanding of the diversity of students and communities into teaching practice to enhance student learning;
• Utilizes professional practices that recognize public education as vital to strengthening our society and building respect for the worth, dignity and equality of every individual;
• Strives to overcome the internal and external barriers that impact student learning;
• Demonstrates generic and content-specific knowledge in areas such as child development, classroom management, motivating children to learn, interpreting and using assessment data, individualizing instruction, aligning content to the state's standards, developing appropriate instructional materials, and working with children with disabilities or from other cultures.

Attaining knowledge and skill in each of these practices is not easy and cannot be effectively measured by a single snapshot in time (such as one classroom observation or a single standardized test of teacher knowledge). Rather, teacher learning should be described as occurring along a continuum from preservice (university level) through inservice (school level) years. In this view of teacher learning, teacher preparation does not end once teachers are in the classroom but rather continues with the induction of beginning teachers and with professional development for experienced teachers.⁴ NEA believes that if states and/or the federal government are to make a serious commitment to ensuring a quality teacher for every child, they must support a systemic approach that recognizes, supports and measures a teacher's growth and ability along the various stages of a quality continuum—a continuum that includes recruitment, preparation, licensure, hiring, induction, continued practice and professional development through mastery, on-going performance assessment, and advanced certification.

NEA's Teacher Quality Initiatives

NEA continues to highly value its role as a leader in teacher quality and as a result, we are actively engaged in a wide-range of activities and initiatives that promote a quality teaching profession.

1. Teacher Working Conditions Survey Initiatives
   It is not reasonable to expect individuals to perform effectively if working conditions do not permit them to do so. If qualified individuals are working in nonproductive environments, the problem likely is systemic and won't be resolved by nonsystemic responses. In the teaching profession, many effective teachers leave schools—and sometimes the profession-when working conditions do not support professional practice. NEA believes that the workplace enables or constrains good teaching and consequently, is a partner in a number of state initiatives examining teacher working conditions. Research from my own state of Arizona as well as a number of other states such as North Carolina, Mississippi, and Kansas⁵ shows that if effective teachers are to be retained in teaching and supported in doing their best work with students, they must have a workplace that promotes their efforts in a variety of ways such as: 1) increased time to focus on student learning, collaborate with peers, and learn from each other; 2) sufficient materials, resources and facilities to teach successfully; 3) opportunities to influence the design and organization of the school; 4) the support and assistance from collaborative school leaders; and, 5) support through effective, relevant, and continuous professional development. Simply put, teacher working conditions equal student learning conditions.
   
   
2. C.A.R.E. — Strategies for Closing the Achievement Gaps
   NEA's Culture, Abilities, Resilience, and Effort (C.A.R.E.) guide focuses on closing the gaps in student achievement by examining and utilizing research on working with culturally and linguistically diverse students. The guide examines research on cultural, language, and economic differences, as well as at unrecognized and undeveloped abilities, resilience, and effort and motivation-the "C.A.R.E. themes," and translates that research into instructional and other strategies that engender high levels of student learning.
   
   
3. Ensuring Quality Teacher Preparation
   Facilitating the involvement of over 200 teachers in reviewing and accrediting over 700 teacher preparation institutions through the National Council on the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), NEA assures that prospective teachers enjoy preparation experiences that are standards-based and rigorously evaluated.
   
   
4. Supporting Accomplished Teachers
   Through its network of state and local affiliates, NEA has helped thousands of teachers pursue certification through the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. Recently, NEA has conducted research and developed support strategies specifically designed to ensure that National Board Certified Teachers represent the diversity of the teaching population.
   
   
5. Attracting Talented Teachers to High-Needs Schools
   NEA sponsored six National Board Certified Teacher Policy Summits (Washington, Ohio, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi) culminating in a National Strategy Forum designed to learn directly from accomplished teachers what it will take to recruit and retain them to high-needs schools. Summits have resulted in policy and legislation to support quality teaching and positive teacher working conditions. (See Appendix B )
   
   
6. Diversifying the Teacher Workforce
   NEA is engaged in a partnership with the Tom Joyner Foundation to provide support to minorities pursuing state teacher licensure. NEA also maintains an active partnership with the Education Testing Service to conduct research, develop curriculum, and provide intervention services to prospective teachers of color in order to help them meet high standards for teacher licensure.
   
   
7. Advocating High Standards for Teacher Licensure
   NEA works in partnership with its state affiliates and national partners (such as the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education) to promote and strengthen state licensure processes that ensure every teacher has the necessary preparation, knowledge, and skill before being granted a license to teach.
   
   
8. Providing Quality Professional Learning and Development
   Through the new NEA Academy, NEA is developing and/or brokering scores of high quality on-line professional development programs and products for teachers throughout the country. In addition, NEA maintains a partnership with the National Staff Development Council that will result in a comprehensive report on "Advancing High Quality Professional Learning Through Collective Bargaining and State Policy" scheduled for publication in Spring 2008.
   
   
9. NEA's Salary Campaign
   Quality teachers are the key to providing great public schools for every student. In order to attract and retain accomplished teachers, districts must pay them a professional level salary. A $40,000 minimum salary must be provided to all teachers in every school. While teacher compensation is primarily a state and local government responsibility, Congress can express support for this minimum salary in the ESEA reauthorization. While the $40,000 minimum is at the heart of NEA's salary campaign, NEA also supports other key compensation elements such as: 1) designing compensation systems to firmly establish teaching as a respected profession. Comprehensive pay systems must encourage the factors that make a difference in teaching and learning-such as skills, knowledge, and experience, and National Board Certification; and, 2) using creative ideas to enhance the single salary schedule such as forgiving student loan debt and providing housing allowances/tax credits.

Supporting Quality Schools and Teacher Quality

The vast majority of Americans believe that public schools are indispensable for the continued health of our country and that everyone benefits from high quality public schools. NEA believes that in order to eliminate the inequities that exist between and within our schools, policies and programs must be developed, funded, and implemented in order to advance the nation's goal of high quality public schools and high quality teachers for all students. To do this, NEA:

1. Opposes the President's budget proposal to cut funding by $100 million for the most important, comprehensive, and largest federal program supporting teacher quality, Title II, Part A. Instead, NEA recommends that Improving Teacher Quality State Grants be funded, at a minimum, at the level originally authorized—$3.175 billion, a $240 million increase over current funding.
   
   
2. Opposes the expansion of the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) since the Title II-A program already includes among its many allowable uses provisions for state and locally designed performance-based compensation systems and pay differentiation programs. Second, the research on so-called performance-based pay plans and their effect on improving student achievement is at best mixed. A story in Education Week on a recent conference on teacher performance pay plans held by the National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University was headlined, "Performance-Pay Studies Show Few Achievement Gains", and noted that performance pay initiatives nationwide have found mixed results. Third, this program is still not authorized. In fact an effort to add an authorization for TIF to the Higher Education Act was rejected last fall by the House Education and Labor Committee. The President is requesting a $103 million increase, essentially doubling the size of the program and allowing for an expansion of the number of grantees.
   
   
3. Opposes funding for the adjunct teacher corps as proposed in the President's request, and asks the subcommittee to reject this request as it has done in the past. The President's proposal would allow individuals who do not meet the highly qualified requirements of NCLB to be considered teachers of record. While individuals who are content experts might play a role in helping students while working under the supervision of a fully licensed/certified teacher, they should not be considered regular teachers of records.
   
   
4. Supports the $15 million request from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) for the continuing support for the NBPTS to assist more teachers to obtain National Board Certification and provide financial incentives for National Board Certified Teachers to go to and stay in hard-to-staff schools. The President's budget calls for elimination of funding for such advanced credentialing.
   
   
5. Requests a substantial increase to the Title I, Part A program of at least $1 billion, as well as the restoration of funding eliminated in the President's request for school leadership, advanced credentialing, and teacher quality enhancement grants under Title II, Part A of the Higher Education Act.
   
   
6. Recognizes and is a strong proponent of smaller class sizes and supports "The Facilitating Outstanding Classrooms Using Size Reduction Act" (FOCUS Act), (S. 2122), introduced by Senator Murray, and the first year's authorized level of $2 billion. To ensure quality teaching in schools teachers must have quality teaching conditions, including smaller class sizes. We support adding this program to the ESEA reauthorization, as well as providing funding for class size reduction in the FY 09 education appropriations bill.
   
   
7. Advocates for the renewal of a school modernization program, and supports "The Public School Repair and Renovation Act of 2007" (S. 1942), introduced by the subcommittee's chairman, Senator Harkin, and the first year's authorized level of $1.6 billion. As with class size reduction, we call for adding this program to ESEA and including funding for urgent school repairs in the FY 09 bill.
   
   
8. Proposes that through congressional action, take advantage of the flexibility of salary schedules now in place to offer incentives for teachers to gain additional skills and knowledge and for taking on challenges and additional responsibility. By recognizing that compensation systems now have the flexibility to accommodate some immediate changes, Congressional action that takes advantage of what is already in place will make more of a difference and faster, than trying to reinvent the system.
   
   
9. Opposes any federal requirements for a pay system that mandates teacher pay based on student performance or student test scores. There are numerous reasons for rejecting such schemes: tests are imperfect measures; student mobility in a given district or classroom might be high, thereby skewing the system; test scores are not the only measure of student success; and, single year test scores do not measure growth. In addition, NEA opposes any federal mandate that requires test scores or student performance as an element of compensation systems.
   
   
10. Recognizes the right of many jurisdictions to collectively bargain (or mutually agree to) enhancements to the current salary schedule. NEA already supports many ideas to enhance the single salary schedule, such as:

• Incentives to attract qualified teachers to hard-to-staff schools;
• Incentives for the achievement of National Board Certification;
• Incentives for teachers to mentor colleagues new to the profession;
• Incentives for accepting additional responsibilities such as peer assistance or mentoring;
• Additional pay for working additional time through extended school years, extended days, and extra assignments;
• Additional pay for teachers who acquire new knowledge and skills directly related to their school's mission and/or their individual assignments;
  
• Additional pay for teachers who earn advanced credentials/degrees that are directly related to their teaching assignments and/or their school's mission; and
  
• Group or school-wide salary supplements for improved teacher practice leading to improved student learning, determined by multiple indicators (not test scores or student achievement).

Two programs that have implemented some of these positive aspects of enhancements to the current salary schedule include:

A. Manitowoc Public School District (MPSD), Manitowoc, Wisconsin. In MPSD, they have:

• Restructured the salary schedule;
• Required teachers to work toward a professional development goal to move on salary schedule;
  
• Provided increased compensation for earning National Board Certification, Masters's degree or Doctoral degree; and
  
• Introduced a Professional Development Certificate program which is a research-based, portfolio-driven program that is specifically tailored to each individual teacher's professional assignment.

B. Helena Public School District, Helena, Montana. In this school district, they have:

• Developed a Professional Compensation Alternative Plan (PCAP), which allows members to remain on the traditional salary schedule or move to PCAP. PCAP programs include the following components: 1) professional development, including an educational component and completion of professional service, and, 2) increased compensation for earning Master's degree and National Board Certification.

Congressional support for diverse approaches could spur needed change and enable local school districts to tailor action to their specific educational objectives. NEA affiliates at the local and state levels are open to compensation innovations that enhance preparation and practice which, in turn, drive student performance. NEA underscores that in those circumstances, local school administrators and local teacher organizations must work together to mutually decide what compensation alternatives work best in their particular situation. The federal government can play a role in providing funds to support and encourage local and state innovations in compensation systems, but the federal government should leave the specific elements to be decided at the local level.

The NEA believes that the federal government can play a meaningful role in improving teacher quality and, although the Appropriations Committee does not directly deal with policy, we offer the following recommendations for the ESEA reauthorization:

1. ESEA offers the opportunity to provide incentives to strengthen the profession of teaching. In constructing those incentives, federally-supported programs will be most effectively implemented when teachers have the opportunity to understand them and the option to embrace them. Therefore, any such federal program for compensation innovations must require that such program be subject to collective bargaining, or where bargaining does not currently exist, subject to a 75 percent majority support vote of the affected teachers.
   
   
2. Provide financial incentives to school districts that enable teachers with time for collaboration on a regular basis. Components of the TEACH Act legislation proposed by Sen. Kennedy would give teachers across the nation access to high-level, ongoing, high-quality professional development programs that are designed and delivered by expert, practicing teachers. Teachers need adequate time to participate in effective professional growth experiences and should consider ways and the necessary funding to provide more learning time for teachers.
   
   
3. Expand support for high-quality, research-based professional development for all teachers. These programs should be developed in a collaborative fashion between school district officials and local teachers to ensure that teachers — and other educator — receive professional development that is directly linked to their students needs and tied to the school and district curriculum/instructional needs and strategies.
   
   
4. Support and fund high-quality induction programs for new teachers so they have the assistance required to assure their success, and, support experienced teacher service as mentors for new teachers during their first two to three years of teaching. Effective mentoring is a key component in helping new teachers move from theory to practice. For mentors, the experience can motivate, strengthen skills, and, in some districts, lead to career advancement.
   
   
5. Provide incentive grants to districts for the development of peer assistance programs that focus on the improvement of staff knowledge and skills.
   
   
6. Provide financial incentives to districts for recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools.
   
   
7. Require states to develop a "Learning Environment Index" for all schools, and require districts and states to address the problem areas identified for schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Many of the schools not making AYP do not have adequate facilities, safe conditions, teacher retention incentives, and the financial and professional supports needed. The Learning Environment Index should identify and measure teaching and learning conditions in each school.
   
   
8. Amend Title II (the Teacher Quality State Grant program) to allow district collaboration with local teacher unions to survey principals, teachers, and other school staff about their working conditions.
   
   
9. Directly support efforts to improve working conditions through grants for smaller class sizes, and school repair, renovation, and modernization.
   
   
10. Establish scholarship and debt forgiveness programs as incentives for students to enter the teaching profession. This type of financial support is especially important given the low starting salaries for most teachers.
    
    
11. Support additional pay for working additional time, through extended school years, extended days, and extra assignments. Support additional pay for teachers who acquire new knowledge and skills directly related to their school's mission and/or their individual assignments, and for achieving National Board Certification.
    
    
12. Support additional pay for teachers who earn advanced credentials/degrees that are directly related to their teaching assignments and/or their school's mission.
    
    
13. Support group or school-wide salary supplements for improved teacher practice leading to improved student learning, determined by multiple indicators.
    
    
14. Support teacher preparation and licensure programs that assist universities, school districts, and state licensing agencies to advance high, meaningful standards that assure fully-prepared beginning teachers. Eliminate and prohibit national, state, and district programs that permit unprepared individuals to teach with no professional training and no classroom experience. NEA believes that teacher preparation and licensure programs must be rigorous and that every teacher candidate — including those graduating from alternative route programs — must meet identical standards and measures in order to receive a professional teaching license. Those same standards and measures align with NEA's Principles of Professional Practice and ensure that processes for teacher licensure adequately address the skills, knowledge, and dispositions needed for effective teaching (See Appendix C for additional details ).
    
    
15. Support, expand and improve training for Paraprofessionals so they have the skills and knowledge they need to assist teachers in improving student learning.

NEA supports the following Senate bills that address teacher quality issues:

• S. 837, the Improving the Leadership and Effectiveness of Administrators for Districts (I LEAD) Act of 2007 by Sen. Clinton (D-NY) would authorize competitive grants to high-need local educational agencies; consortia of high-need local educational agencies; and partnerships of high-need local educational agencies, nonprofit organizations, and institutions of higher education to develop a generation of school leaders who are committed to, and effective in, increasing student achievement, and to ensure that all low-income, underperforming schools are led by effective school leaders who are well prepared to foster student success.
• S. 1574, the Teaching Residency Act by Sen. Obama (D-IL) would establish an innovative framework for prospective teachers to partner with mentor teachers for an academic year, receive master's level coursework and certification, and gain direct classroom experience (similar to medical residency programs for health professionals) by creating a competitive partnership grant program under Title II of HEA to support Teaching Residency Programs. It would fund programs in high-needs school districts to recruit, prepare, and provide ongoing mentoring and induction support through a partnership between colleges or universities, school districts, non-profit community partners, and other participants. It would also provide a stipend for teachers during their year of preparation and require them to work in the district upon completion of the program.
• S. 1979, the School Improvement through Teacher Quality Act of 2007 by Sen. Reed (D-RI) would create a new program in Title II geared toward enhancing professional development for school improvement. The legislation emphasizes high-quality, ongoing professional development, mentoring and induction programs, collaborative planning and instructional strategies, and would target schools most in need of improvement.
• S. 2212, the Teachers Professional Development Institutes Act by Sen. Lieberman (D-CT) would amend Title II of ESEA to authorize a total of $30 million to support the establishment and operation of Teachers Institutes for local educational agencies that serve significant low-income student populations to improve student learning; and to enhance the quality of teaching and strengthen the subject matter mastery and the pedagogical skills of current teachers through continuing teacher preparation.
• S. 2496, the Enhancing Teaching Standards and License Portability Act of 2007 by Sen. Bingaman (D-NM) would amend Title II of ESEA to improve teacher quality by supporting the development of rigorous kindergarten through grade 12 teaching standards that incorporate 21st century teaching and learning skills; promote alignment of these standards with performance-based teacher assessments; create incentives for states to adopt, pilot, and implement such teaching standards and performance-based teacher assessments through a competitive grants process; promote efforts for states to align these teaching standards and performance-based teacher assessments to state licensing requirements; and to create incentives for states to develop policies that would facilitate license reciprocity and portability.
  

Mr. Chairman, as you can see, the question of how to improve teacher quality in this country is a complex one that requires a comprehensive solution with adequate resources. I hope that your subcommittee can help lead the way in providing states and school districts with those needed resources. I again thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today and would be happy to answer any questions.

_________________________________

Footnotes:

¹ Boe, E.E., and Bobbitt, S.A., Why didst-thou go? Predictors of retention, transfer and attrition of special and general education teachers from a national perspective. (Journal of Special Education): 30, 4, 390-411.

² National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Teachers College Press; Little, J. W. (1990).

³ The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching. In C. Cazden (Ed.) Review of Research in Education, 16, pp. 297-351. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

⁴ Feiman—Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.

⁵ To view teacher working condition (TWC) survey instruments and results (North Carolina, Kansas and Arizona), and learn about other aspects of individual state initiatives, go to web pages created for each state: Arizona: www.aztwc.org; North Carolina: www.northcarolinatwc.org; Kansas: www.kansastwc.org; Clark County, NV: www.nvtlc.org; Ohio: www.ohiotlc.org; Mississippi: www.projectclearvoice.org

NEA on Education Funding:
Restore/Increase Funding to Help Ensure Great Public Schools for Every Child

• Improving the education of our nation's children should and must be a much higher priority.
  
  
• America's 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.
  
  
• Programs such as Title I, IDEA, and Pell Grants are already underfunded and cannot meet the needs of eligible students.
  
  
• In the 2005-06 school year, almost 11,000 public schools had already failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress for two or more years under NCLB provisions, and thus faced federal sanctions. These schools will face even greater challenges in the coming year as testing and teacher quality requirements go into full effect. In fact the 2007-08 school year is the first year of mandated science testing.
  
  
• The federal government is moving backwards, away from its commitment to provide 40 percent of the costs of providing special education services to students. Because of inadequate federal support, schools are often unable to provide the full spectrum of services mandated under IDEA. In addition, administrators must sometimes cut other critical programs to fund mandated IDEA services.
  
  
• An increase is also needed to ensure adequate resources for higher education programs such as Pell Grants. As public universities, long 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. When the Pell Grant program was first created, the maximum grant for the poorest students covered 84 percent of the cost of a public four-year college. Today, it covers only 39 percent.
  

I need more info:

• NEA on Education Funding  
• Letters to Congress    

Education Funding: The Facts*

Overall Discretionary Education Funding

Fiscal Year 2001 (pre-Bush)

• Final Appropriation: $42.2 billion

Fiscal Year 2002

• Bush Proposal: $44.5 billion(+5.5%)
• Final Appropriation: $49.9 billion (+18.2%)

Fiscal Year 2003

• Bush Proposal: $50.3 billion (+0.7%)
• Final Appropriation: $53.1 billion (+6.4%)

Fiscal Year 2004

• Bush proposal: $53.1 billion(+0.05%)
• Final Appropriation: $55.7 billion (+4.8%)

Fiscal Year 2005

• Bush Proposal: $57.3 billion(+3%)
• Final Appropriation: $56.6 billion (+1.6%)

Fiscal Year 2006

• Bush Proposal: $56.1 billion (-0.9%)
• Final Appropriation:$56.5 billion (-0.1%)
  (Note: includes extra $600 million shifted from mandatory to discretionary spending)

Fiscal Year 2007

• Bush proposal: $54.41 billion (-3.8%)

No Child Left Behind

Fiscal Year 2001 (pre-Bush)

• Final Appropriation: $18.7 billion

Fiscal Year 2002

• Bush Proposal: $19.1 billion(+2.5%)
• Final Appropriation: $22.2 billion(+18.8%)
• Authorization Level: $26.4 billion

Fiscal Year 2003

• Bush Proposal: $22.1 billion (-0.4%)
• Final Appropriation: $23.8 billion(+7.4%)
• Authorization Level: $29.2 billion

Fiscal Year 2004

• Bush Proposal: $22.6 billion(-5.1%)
• Final Appropriation: $24.5 billion(+2.6%)
• Authorization Level: $32.0 billion

Fiscal Year 2005

• Bush Proposal: $24.9 billion(+1.8%)
• Final Appropriation: $24.5 billion(+0.2%)
• Authorization Level: $34.3 billion

Fiscal Year 2006

• Bush Proposal: $24.8 billion
• Authorization Level: $36.9 billion
• Final Appropriation: $23.5 billion (-4.1%)

Fiscal Year 2007

• Bush Proposal:
  • Existing NCLB programs: $22.7 billion(-3.4%)
  • New programs (math/science, high school reform, vouchers): $1.3 billion
  • Total NCLB: $24.0 billion (+2.2%)
• Authorization Level: $39.4 billion

Title I

Fiscal Year 2001 (pre-Bush)

• Final Appropriation: $8.8 billion

Fiscal Year 2002

• Bush Proposal: $9.1 billion(+3.4%)
• Final Appropriation: $10.4 billion(+18.1%)
• Authorization Level: $13.5 billion

Fiscal Year 2003

• Bush Proposal: $11.4 billion(+9.7%)
• Final Appropriation: $11.7 billion (+12.9%)
• Authorization Level: $16.0 billion

Fiscal Year 2004

• Bush proposal: $12.4 billion(+5.7%)
• Final Appropriation: $12.3 billion(+5.6%)
• Authorization Level: $18.5 billion

Fiscal Year 2005

• Bush Proposal: $13.3 billion(+8.1%)
• Final Appropriation: $12.7 billion(+3.2%)
• Authorization Level: $20.5 billion

Fiscal Year 2006

• Bush Proposal: $13.3 billion (+4.7%)
• Authorization Level: $22.7 billion
• Final Appropriation:$12.7 billion (-0.2%)

Fiscal Year 2007

• Bush Proposal: $12.7 billion (+0%)
• Authorization Level: $25 billion

IDEA

Fiscal Year 2001 (pre-Bush)

• Final Appropriation: $6.34 billion

Fiscal Year 2002

• Bush Proposal: $7.3 billion(+15.8%)
• Final Appropriation: $7.5 billion(+18.8%)
• Six-Year Path to Full Funding: $8.8 billion
• Full Funding (40 percent of costs): $18 billion

Fiscal Year 2003

• Bush Proposal: $8.5 billion(+13.3%)
• Final Appropriation: $8.9 billion (+17.9%)
• Hagel-Harkin Amendment (Six-Year Path to Full Funding): $9.9 billion
• Full Funding (40 percent of costs): $19.5 billion

Fiscal Year 2004

• Bush Proposal: $9.5 billion(+7.0%)
• Final Appropriation: $10.1 billion(+13.5%)
• Hagel-Harkin Amendment: (Six-Year Path to Full Funding):$11.4 billion
• Full Funding (40 percent of costs): $21.5 billion

Fiscal Year 2005

• Bush Proposal: $11.1 billion(+9.9%)
• Final Appropriation: $10.6 billion(+5.2%)
• Hagel-Harkin Amendment (Six-Year Path to Full Funding): $12.9 billion
• New IDEA Authorization Level: $12.4 billion
• Full Funding (40 percent of costs): $22.4 billion

Fiscal Year 2006

• Bush Proposal: $11.1 billion
• Authorization Level: $14.6 billion
• Full Funding (40 percent of costs): $23.8 billion
• Final Appropriation: $10.6 billion (-0%)

Fiscal Year 2007

• Bush Proposal: $10.7 billion (+0.9%)
• Authorization Level: $16.9 billion
• Full Funding (40 percent of costs): $25.1 billion

*Authorized or full funding level is the maximum funding allowed under the law. Appropriation is the amount allocated for the particular year (can range from zero to the authorized level). Except where indicated as authorization or full funding level, figures represent amounts appropriated or proposed for appropriation.

I need more info:

• Issue Overview: Education Funding
• NEA's Position on Education Funding
• Letters to Congress   
• For 2003-2004 historical data, see FY04
• For 2004-2005 historical data, see FY05 
• For 2006 historical data, see FY06
• The NEA report, No Child Left Behind?: The Funding Gap in ESEA and Other Federal Education Programs, finds the federal government is not providing the funds required by NCLB and other federal programs that serve students and schools.

Letters to Congress

• Letter to the House Appropriations Committee on education funding for the FY09 Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Bill, 6/26/08
• Letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education on education funding for the FY09 Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Bill, 6/23/08
• Letter to the House urging support for the domestic spending provisions in the 2008 supplemental appropriations bill, 6/19/08
• Letter to the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education on education funding for the FY09 Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Bill, 6/19/08
• Letter to the House supporting the concurrent Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Resolution, 6/5/08
• Letter to the House supporting the concurrent Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Resolution, 5/21/08
• Letter to the House supporting domestic spending amendment to 2008 supplemental appropriations bill, 5/15/08
• Letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee supporting domestic spending amendment to 2008 supplemental appropriations bill, 5/15/08
• Letter to the full Senate urging support of proposals to increase education funding and provide fiscal relief for the states, 3/12/08
• Letter to the full House urging support of budget resolution that would provide $7 billion more for education than the Administration has requested, 3/10/08
• Letter to the Senate urging support of FY09 budget resolution, 3/06/08
• Letter to the House urging support of FY09 budget resolution, 3/5/08
• Letter to the Senate Finance Committee urging support of the Rockefeller amendment to the economic stimulus package, 1/28/08
• Letter to Democratic members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the omnibus funding bill, 12/13/07
• Letter to all House Members who voted to override the veto of the Labor-HHS-Ed appropriations bill, 12/3/07
• Letter to the full Congress on crafting the omnibus funding bill, 11/30/07
• Letter to the House calling for an override of the Presidential veto of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill, 11/14/07
• Letter to 64 Republicans who voted at least once in support of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, calling for an override of the Presidential veto, 11/14/07
• Letter to the full Congress in support of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, 11/5/07
• Letter to the appropriatiations conferees on crafting a conference report on FY08 appropriations for education, 10/31/07
• Letter to the Senate in opposition to any motion to commit the Labor-H bill back to the Appropriations Committee, 10/22/07 
• Letter to the Senate in support of the FY08 education appropriations bill, 10/15/07
• Letter to the House of Representatives supporting the FY08 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, 7/16/07
• Letter to Representative Fattah supporting his "Student Bill of Rights," 6/27/07
• Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education, 6/13/07
• Letter to House Appropriations Committee on Labor-HHS-Education, 6/13/07
• Letter to House members of the Republican Main Street Partnership urging them not to sign a letter to the President encouraging a veto of appropriations bills, 5/30/07
• Letter to the House appropriations Labor-HHS subcommittee on priorities for funding of programs under HHS jurisdiction, 5/21/07 
• Letter to the full Congress supporting the FY08 budget conference resolution, 5/17/07
• Letter to the full Congress on retaining rural schools and SCHIP in any new FY07 supplemental, 5/3/07
• Letter to the House Labor-HHS-Ed Appropriations Committee on Appropriations bill, 5/2/07
• Letter to Congress alerting them to the new education funding charts available on the NEA Web site, 4/17/07
• Letter to U.S. House of Representatives supporting the budget resolution, 3/26/07
• Letter to Senate on supplemental appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2007, 3/26/07
• Letter to full Senate on FY08 budget resolution, 3/21/07
• Letter to Senate appropriations committee on FY07 supplemental appropriations bill, 3/21/07
• Letter to the Budget Committee on FY2008 congressional budget resolution (House), 3/20/07
• Letter to the Committee on Appropriations asking for funding for Forest County and Schools Program and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in the emergency supplemental, 3/1/07
• Letter to the Senate opposing an Alexander amendment on Teacher Incentive Fund, 2/13/07
• Letter to the Senate on the FY07 Continuing Resolution, 2/6/07
• Letter to the House of Representatives supporting the proposed Continuing Resolution for FY 2007, 1/30/07
• Letter to Senate Appropriations Committee, 7/19/06
• Letter to the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, 7/10/06
• Letter to the House Appropriations Committee on Labor-HHS- Education, 6/8/06
• Letter to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS- Education, 5/25/06
• Letter Opposing the Budget Resolution (House), 5/11/06
• Letter to the House of Representatives, 4/6/06
• Letter to the House Budget Committee (House), 3/27/06
• Letter in support of Akaka Amendment (Senate), 3/15/06
• Letter to Senate Supporting Specter-Harkin Amendment (Senate), 3/14/06
• Letter to Budget Committee, Budget Resolution (Senate), 3/7/06
• Budget Reconciliation Package (House), 2/1/06
• Budget Reconciliation Package (House), 1/31/06
• Budget Reconciliation Package (House), 1/17/06
• FY06 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill Conference Report (House), 12/13/05  
• FY06 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill Conference Report (Senate), 12/13/05  
• Letter to Full Congress on the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Conference Report , 11/16/05
• Budget Reconciliation Package, 11/10/05
• Letter to Appropriations Conferees, 11/8/05
• Vouchers and Budget Reconciliation (Senate), 11/2/05
• Landrieu Voucher Amendment (Senate), 10/26/05
• Budget Resolution for FY06 (House Subcommittee), 10/26/05
• Landrieu Voucher Amendment (Senate), 10/25/05
• 2006 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill (Senate), 10/21/05
• Budget Reconciliation (House Committee), 10/18/05
• Budget Reconciliation (Senate Committee), 10/17/05
• FY2006 Education Funding (Senate Committee), 7/14/05
• FY2006 Education Funding Additional Amendments (House), 6/24/05
• FY2006 Education Funding Amendments (House), 6/23/05

Letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee

July 14, 2005

Dear Senator:

On behalf of the National Education Association's (NEA) 2.7 million members, we would like to express our concerns regarding the fiscal year 2006 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill scheduled for mark-up this week.

NEA recognizes the difficulty in crafting a bill given the tight budget and limited resources provided to the subcommittee. We are quite pleased that the subcommittee chose to reject efforts to reform high schools at the expense of career and technical education and, instead, opted to restore funding for this essential high school program. We also appreciate the inclusion of funding for GEAR-UP and TRIO, which had been targeted for elimination. Last, we recognize the importance of the elimination of the Pell Grant shortfall.

Nonetheless, we do believe the bill as approved by the subcommittee falls far short of what is needed for education and will leave far too many students and schools without the resources they need to succeed. We are disappointed both with the overall education funding levels and, in particular, with the targeting of some of those limited resources to misplaced priorities.

The proposed bill would offer the smallest increase in a decade for education programs (a mere 0.2 percent increase). Many key programs would be significantly underfunded or eliminated. For example, the bill would:

• Cut No Child Left Behind (NCLB) programs by $750 million. The proposed cut, from $24.5 million to $23.77 million (-3.1%), comes as many schools are already struggling to meet NCLB mandates. In the 2004-05 school year, almost 11,000 public schools (an increase from 6,190 in the previous year) had already failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB for two or more years, and thus faced federal sanctions. These schools will face even greater challenges in the coming year as testing and teacher quality requirements go into full effect.

The insufficient funding proposed for Title I in particular will make it even more difficult for schools to succeed. The subcommittee bill would provide only a $100 million increase (0.8%) over current Title I funding, and the proposed funding level of $12.8 billion would actually fall some $503 million less than the President's budget request of $13.3 billion.

• Reduce the federal share of IDEA funding from 18.6 percent to 18.0 percent. The subcommittee bill would provide only a $100 million increase for IDEA special education, and the proposed $10.69 billion funding level would fall more than $407 million below the President's request.

• Cut funding for education technology by $71 million. The subcommittee bill would cut education technology from $496 million in FY05 to $425 million in FY06, on top of a cut of $196 million in FY05. This cut comes despite the fact that one in four states has no dedicated technology funds to track NCLB student achievement data or improve teachers' use of technology.

• Freeze funding for after-school programs. After-school programs make a significant difference in maximizing academic achievement for all students and in keeping children safe and away from unsafe or illegal activities. Yet, even at current levels, only 38 percent of applicants receive federal funding.

We are also concerned that the bill would eliminate programs such as comprehensive school reform, Even Start, smaller learning communities and dropout prevention, and would cut the Safe and Drug Free School program by more than 25 percent.

Finally, we oppose targeting of funds to abstinence-only education. Recent studies have highlighted the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education. Given limited resources, we believe spending funds in this area reflects misplaced priorities, and we urge the committee to shift these HHS funds to proven, underfunded programs such as Head Start.

We thank you for your consideration of our views on these important issues. We will provide additional comments on amendments as information becomes available.

Sincerely,

Diane Shust, Director of Government Relations

Randall Moody, Manager of Federal Policy and Politics

Title I Funding Gaps (FY 2002 – 2006)

The Gap Between Actual and Authorized Levels

See the annual level of Title I funding from 2002 to 2006  (PDF, 52k, 2pgs). The figures for the 2006 fiscal year reflect the amount provided in the education funding bill passed by the House (H.R. 3010). That bill increased Title I funding only $100 million, or 0.8 percent -- $503 million below the President's request. Congress has not yet concluded work on the 2006 education funding bill; therefore, a final number is not available.

While Title I funding has increased over the period, there is a growing disparity between the "appropriated" (actual) funding and the level "authorized" (maximum level allowed) for any given year. The disparity is so large that it has reached a cumulative $30.8 billion for the period, with appropriations for the period amounting to only 66.6 percent of the amount authorized.

Due to this gap, nine states and two-thirds of all school districts will receive less Title I funding in the 2005-06 school year than they did in the previous school year.

Letter on Education Funding Sent to Members of the House Rules Committee

March 24, 2004

On behalf of the National Education Association's (NEA) 2.7 million members, we urge you to make in order amendments to the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution that would improve the education of our nation's children and protect the health and well-being of America's families.

NEA believes the budget resolution should reflect our nation's priorities, and that providing additional resources for public education and for programs targeted to vulnerable families should be a top priority. Therefore, we urge you to make in order the following:

• Obey amendment adding $5.7 billion for our most vulnerable students and families, including:

• Emanuel/DeLauro amendment to extend the Higher Education Tuition Deduction.

• Jackson-Lee amendment to increase funding for the National Science Foundation Math and Science Partnership.

• Woolsey/Moran/Ford/Kind amendment to increase No Child Left Behind funding by $3 billion, reach full funding of special education by 2012, and raise the maximum Pell Grant award.

In addition, NEA supports the Democratic Leadership (Spratt) substitute and the Congressional Black Caucus substitute, both of which provide significant boosts in education investments.

Again, we urge you to allow consideration of substitutes and amendments that make children and families a top federal priority.

Sincerely,

Diane Shust, Director of Government Relations

Randall Moody, Manager of Federal Policy and Politics

Letter on Education Funding Sent to Each Member of the U.S. House of Representatives

March 25, 2004

On behalf of the National Education Association's (NEA) 2.7 million members, we urge you to vote NO on final passage of the fiscal year 2005 Congressional Budget Resolution, which fails to devote sufficient resources to children and public education. In addition, we urge you to support the Democratic Leadership and Congressional Black Caucus substitutes, both of which would provide significant boosts in education investments. Votes associated with this issue may be included in the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 108th Congress.

NEA believes that the budget resolution should reflect our nation's priorities, and that providing additional resources for public education and programs targeted to vulnerable children and families should be a top priority. The proposed budget fails this test because it:

• Proposes the smallest overall increase for education programs in nine years, neglecting the widespread need for additional funding from early childhood through postsecondary education.

• Shortchanges No Child Left Behind programs by approximately $9 billion below authorized levels, with most of that gap impacting Title I. This shortfall comes as many of NCLB's most costly mandates — including annual testing and highly qualified teacher requirements — are about to go into effect. In addition, the shortfall leaves the tens of thousands of schools already found failing to make adequate yearly progress without the resources necessary to improve student achievement.

• Falls further behind on fully funding special education, by proposing only a 0.5 percent increase in funding. The budget rejects bipartisan proposals to move toward full funding, while leaving the federal share of special education funding at less than half of the level promised decades ago.

• Freezes Pell Grant funding for the third year in a row, making college unaffordable for millions of low-income students.

In contrast, both the Democratic Leadership and Congressional Black Caucus substitutes make children and public education real priorities by providing meaningful investments to help our most vulnerable children and families. We urge you to support the Democratic Leadership and CBC substitutes and to oppose passage of the budget resolution should neither of these substitutes pass.

Sincerely,

Diane Shust, Director of Government Relations

Randall Moody, Manager of Federal Policy and Politics

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

NEA's Response to the Bush Administration's FY 2005 Budget Request

I.  Funding for Critical Programs

The Administration's proposal falls short in a number of areas, failing to provide the resources necessary to ensure great public schools for every child. For the Department of Education, the Administration proposes only a 3 percent increase, which would be the smallest percentage increase (as well as the smallest dollar increase) in the last nine years. 

The request does include increases for select programs, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Title I, and literacy. However, the IDEA and Title I increases fall short of promised levels, and all increased program funding appears to come at the expense of other important programs. The request also does include some positive initiatives, including extension/expansion of the educator tax deduction and an increase in funding for school modernization bonds.

Overall, "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) Act programs would only receive a 1.8 percent increase, not even sufficient to cover inflation, resulting in fewer services to students.

Title I

NEA Priority: Keep the commitment to fully fund Title I at the authorized level of $20.5 billion for FY05. 

Rationale: Almost 27,000 schools did not make adequate yearly progress under the achievement and accountability provisions of NCLB, with over 6,000 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.

Administration Proposal: The Administration proposes an increase of $1 billion, bringing total funding to $13.342 billion. Although this represents an increase of 8 percent over current funding, it falls far short (by $7.158 billion) of the $20.5 billion level authorized in "No Child Left Behind." Compared to the amount needed to fully serve all eligible low-income children, some 4.6 million children will be left behind.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

NEA Priority: Provide mandatory annual increases in accordance with the Hagel-Harkin (S.939) proposal, to bridge the current funding gap, and reach full funding.

Rationale: Though strides have been made to increase funding for IDEA, funding levels remain far from the promised 40 percent of the costs of providing services to students. Because of the limited funding available, schools are often unable to provide the full spectrum of critical special education services mandated under IDEA. The lack of sufficient funding to meet the needs of students with disabilities also places considerable strain on the entire school budget, as administrators are forced to increase tax revenue or cut other critical programs to provide mandated IDEA services.

Administration Proposal: The Administration proposes an increase of $1 billion, bringing total funding to $11.068 billion. This amount falls $5.8 billion below the amount necessary to stay on track toward full funding under the Hagel-Harkin plan. At the Administration's proposed rate of increase, it would take 30 years to reach full funding.

Pell Grants

NEA Priority: Support an increase of at least $500 in the Pell Grant maximum for FY05, bringing the maximum to $4,550.

Rationale: Access to postsecondary education opportunities allows individuals to succeed in jobs with career potential and upward mobility. Census data consistently show that those with higher educational attainment have higher median earnings. Expanding postsecondary education opportunities also helps ensure the well-educated workforce our nation needs to compete in the 21st century. 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.

Administration Proposal: The Administration proposes no increase in the Pell Grant maximum award over the current (FY04) level of $4,050.  This would be the second consecutive year of a freeze for the maximum award.

Teacher Quality

NEA Priority: Increase funding for Teacher Quality State Grants by $1 billion.

Rationale: Ensuring a qualified teacher in every classroom is critical to maximizing student achievement. Schools facing new teacher quality mandates need increased resources to help all teachers meet new "highly qualified" requirements. Additional funding is also needed to hire teachers to reduce class size, enhance and expand ongoing professional development, and establish high-quality mentoring programs for new teachers.

Administration's Proposal:  The Administration proposes freezing funding for Teacher Quality State Grants.

Head Start

NEA Priority: Provide increased funding to move toward serving all eligible children in need of Head Start services; Reject block grants.

Rationale: Despite its importance in helping children start school ready to learn, Head Start remains significantly underfunded. As a result, it only serves approximately 60 percent of eligible children. 

Block grants would undermine the program's current high standards for student performance and staff qualifications that have been key to the success of Head Start. Turning Head Start over to the states, even in a limited pilot program, is a bad idea as states have no federal monitoring and few have real accountability systems in place. Furthermore, the added layer of bureaucracy will drain already scarce resources from early education programs.

Administration Proposal: The Administration proposes a cost-of-living increase of $169 million, bringing total funding to $6.9 billion. This level will not allow any increase in the number of children served. The Administration also proposes $45 million to support a nine-state block grant program.

Child Care Development Block Grant/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (CCDGB/TANF)

NEA Priority: Ensure sufficient resources to provide quality child care options for working families. 

Rationale: Low-income families are concentrated at the bottom of the labor pool, often in part-time or temporary positions, and are among the first fired during economic crises. Quality early childhood education is essential to future success in school. Low-income parents struggling to achieve independence should be assured that their children are safe and are receiving the necessary skills for later success. 

Administration's Proposal: The Administration proposes freezing funding for both CCDBG and TANF. In the best-case scenario, 300,000 children would lose child care at this funding level. 

Literacy

NEA Priority: Provide funding to address the adolescent reading and graduation rate crisis.

Rationale: There is no federal program to address the needs of older students who lack the reading skills necessary to meet graduation requirements in most states. Eight million students in grades 4-12 currently read below basic levels.

Administration Proposal: The Administration proposes $100 million targeted to address adolescent literacy. However, the Administration also proposes to eliminate or cut programs such as dropout prevention and career and technical education that have proven track records of helping adolescents stay in school.

Teacher Tax Deduction

NEA Priority: Increase the above-the-line deduction for educators' classroom supply expenses to $400, expand it to cover professional development expenses, and make it permanent.

Rationale: Educators are spending more of their own funds each year to supply their classrooms, including purchasing essential items such as pencils, glue, scissors, and facial tissues. In 2002, Congress enacted a two-year $250 tax deduction for educators' out-of-pocket classroom supply expenses as part of the economic stimulus package. The deduction expired at the end of 2003.  

President's Proposal: The Administration's request includes the NEA-supported proposal to extend the deduction, increase it from $250 to $400, and expand it to cover professional development expenses.

Qualified Zone Academy Bonds

NEA Priority: Extend authority to issue QZABs.

Rationale: America's public schools are in desperate need of repair and renovation. Yet, many school systems lack the fiscal capacity to finance needed repairs. The QZAB program encourages the development of innovative school programs through public/private partnerships.

Administration Proposal: The Administration proposes to extend QZAB authority for two years. 

II.  Program Eliminations

Administration Proposal: The Administration proposes eliminating 38 critical education programs, totaling $1.41 billion.

General NEA Comments: NEA supports providing additional resources for students, educators, schools and postsecondary institutions to meet the increasing demands of skyrocketing enrollments and the goals of improving educational achievement at all levels. NEA also supports protecting and enhancing programs with proven track records of helping students achieve academic success. Proposed program eliminations in school reform, education technology, education research, dropout prevention, smaller learning communities, career and technical education, school counseling and others counter the potentially positive impact of the President's proposed increases and new initiatives. Creating new programs or increasing existing ones at the expense of others does not represent the commitment needed for education. 

III.  Public Policy

The Administration's budget request proposes using the budget process to make a number of troubling public policy changes. NEA has strong concerns about several of these proposals. The Administration proposal also fails to address other important policy concerns, such as the elimination of Social Security Offsets. 

Vouchers

NEA Priority: Protect public schools and the students they serve by rejecting efforts to divert scarce dollars to private schools.

Rationale:  Research clearly demonstrates that vouchers do little to improve student achievement. Rather than experimenting with programs already found to make no real difference in student achievement, we should focus on ensuring that all students have the tools for success — including smaller class sizes, more parental involvement, up-to-date materials and high teacher quality.

Administration Proposal: The Administration proposes a $50 million national voucher program as well as an additional $14 million for vouchers for the District of Columbia.

Abstinence-only Education

NEA Priority: Protect students' right to information and educators' freedom of speech by rejecting restrictions on federal sex education dollars.

Rationale:  All students should have access to important health and sexuality information through appropriately established sex education programs in order to protect themselves and make informed decisions. Public schools should be permitted to address the educational needs of all students and should not be restrained by restrictions on free speech.

Administration Proposal: The Administration proposes $50 million for Abstinence Education State Grants, as well as a $112 million increase for Community-Based Abstinence Education (from $74 million in FY04 to $186 million in FY05). These grants provide support to public and private entities for the development and implementation of abstinence education programs for adolescents ages 12 through 18. Programs funded through this program must promote abstinence-only education and must agree not to provide a participating adolescent any other information regarding sexual conduct in the same setting.

Budget Enforcement Mechanisms

NEA Priority: Oppose shifts in the constitutional balance of power that would impact determinations of federal spending.

Rationale: Current constitutional protections ensure an open process with opportunity for debate from all sides. Limiting this debate or placing other restrictions on the budget process would severely curtail the input of congressional officials elected by their constituents to provide just such input. 

Administration Proposal: The Administration proposes a series of changes to the federal budget processes, including:

• Line Item Veto, which would give the executive branch legislative power over spending;
• Automatic Continuing Resolutions, which would wrest control from Congress about when and how to pass appropriations legislation;
• Sequestration, which would trigger sequestration of discretionary or direct spending "as appropriate" in instances where increased spending for mandatory programs is not offset by an equal amount of spending cuts; and
• Joint Budget Resolution, which would replace concurrent budget resolutions, require agreement of the President, and assume the force of law, thereby eliminating Congress' discretion in creating and executing budget resolutions.

Social Security Offsets

NEA Priority: Repeal the unfair Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP).

Rationale: The GPO and WEP unfairly reduce the retirement benefits of public employees who have dedicated their lives to serving their communities and their country. The resulting loss of income jeopardizes the retirement security of those who have chosen public service — often at considerable financial sacrifice — and even forces some into poverty.

Administration Proposal: The Administration proposal does not address remedying the unfair offsets. However, the Administration does propose increased employer reporting requirements aimed at identifying additional individuals who should be subject to the offsets.