The Bidding War Over Education

School Administrator, April, 1999 by Nick Penning

After years of being a budget afterthought, education has finally come into its own as a real player in the annual budget battle between Congress and the president. This enviable situation has its plusses and minuses.

Each year the president starts the debate by proposing a budget for the coming fiscal year. As recently as two years ago, those working in local education saw the president actually request less money for the federal K-12 centerpiece program, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Actually, President Clinton asked for a small decrease in funds for basic grants, which make their way into most school districts nationwide, based on the number of children living in poverty in the county in which the district is based. More funds were sought for concentration grants to school districts in counties with higher numbers or higher percentages of poor children. Congress tinkered around the edges of such requests, and Title I usually ended up with slightly more money.

Then those House members with considerable sway over how education funds will be spent--the members of the Appropriations Committee--began to question the efficacy of Title I.

Mammoth Infusion

Suddenly, after promises of a significant boost to ameliorate the financial burden of special education programs, Congress and the president made a mammoth investment in a new administration initiative to reduce early-grade class sizes by hiring 100,000 new teachers nationwide. The initial cost of this effort was pegged at $1.1 billion, a staggering addition to elementary education spending that dwarfed anything imagined in recent memory.

Then, to ensure no state had an unfair advantage over other states, the distribution formula was altered slightly and the total addition, which was muscled through in end-of-fiscal-year negotiations, was set at $1.2 billion.

In addition, the Clinton administration pushed forward a plan aimed at improving reading achievement. The cost for this program: $260 million. Not wanting to be seen as standing in the way of improving the status of politically popular education funding, Congress swallowed hard and agreed to both programs, giving K-12 education a mind-boggling $1.5 billion in new money, separate from the $520 million add for special education and the $300 million increase for Title 1. That's $2.8 billion more for local schools in just one year.

Stunning Largess

The advent of a budget for the new millennium--with support for education still riding high in the public opinion polls--has seen the president propose $1.4 billion for his class size initiative, $286 million for reading literacy and $320 million more for Title I (a $400 million cut in basic grants balanced off by a $700 million initiative for targeted grants. Special education warranted a paltry $51 million proposed boost.

Not to be outdone, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-Ariz., has promised a 40 percent increase for elementary/secondary spending. "But," says Domenici, "we're going to do that not through the Department of Education but direct to the classrooms and school boards across America. We're going to do that by cutting other programs and restraining programs and saying our first priority is a real addition to education."

Hmm. That sounds suspiciously like a block grant, which traditionally has meant, over time, a reduction in the size of the block. Our classic example is the old Chapter 2, which has fallen from about $800 million in total 1981 funds blocked to roughly $370 million in 1999 dollars. Today, that program has been renamed Title VI-A. A 40 percent increase would be terrific. But when the chairman talks about "cutting other programs" to achieve that increase, the devil will remain in the details.

Nevertheless, to hear a Republican budget chairman talk about increasing K-12 education by 40 percent is a sea change" in outlook, as Domenici described it.

Financial support for public education has come a long way in a short time. Still, if we hope to see equal opportunity for every child to succeed, regardless of income or background, we have a long way to go.

Nick Penning is a legislative specialist for AASA.