The California Institute for Federal Policy Research
a resource for information regarding federal policy and California
voice: 202-974-6384 ~ fax:202-223-2330 ~ email ~ subscribe ~ home
The California Institute for Federal Policy Researchvoice: 202-974-6384 ~ fax:202-223-2330 ~ email ~ subscribe ~ home
The California Institute prepares a quick analysis of the President's budget request on the day it is released. For the FY 2009 Budget, the budget was released the morning of February 4, 2008. The following represents an examination of this portion of the budget from a California perspective. For analysis of other components visit our 2009 Budget page.
Total discretionary budget authority for the Department of Education would remain nearly flat, increasing by just $27 million, from $59.18 billion in FY 08 to $59.21 billion in FY 09.
For carrying out provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and related programs, President Bush's budget proposal for FY 2009 proposes a total of $16.6 billion.
For Title I, the largest federal education grant and the 4th largest program overall, President Bush's budget proposal for FY 2009 proposes a total of $14.3 billion, an increase from $13.9 billion in 2008. Title I Funds are used for local programs that provide extra academic support to help raise the achievement of eligible students in high-poverty schools or, in the case of school-wide programs, help all students in high-poverty schools to meet academic standards. Fiscal year 2009 funds would be expended under an Administration reauthorization proposal to expand the program to more high school students, refine accountability systems, include science in accountability determinations, and "give students in low-performing schools more options."
Funds for Title I are allocated according to four formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants or EFIG. The President's Budget proposes $6,597,946,000 for basic grants; $1,365,031,000 for concentration grants; $3,373,975,000 for targeted grants; and $2,967,949,000 for education finance incentive grants (EFIG).
(In past years, California has received its largest proportional share of Title I funding from targeted grants, followed by concentration grants, then basic grants, and lastly EFIG. However, it is important to note that these proportions may shift considerably from year to year.)
Of the basic grant funds, up to $4 million may be used by the Secretary of Education to obtain annually updated local educational-agency-level census poverty data from the Bureau of the Census under the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program. The California Congressional Delegation was instrumental in the creation of the SAIPE program, which allows for intercensal estimates of poverty data. For many years, data on child poverty were collected only every 10 years, so the primary basis for allocating federal Title I dollars were often badly out of date by the end of a decade. For more information on SAIPE estimations or to view state-level, county-level or school district-level estimates, visit the Census Bureau's SAIPE website.
For a number of years, each fiscal year's budget (and the subsequent appropriations bills for that fiscal year) have provided a portion of funds in the current fiscal year, but shift an additional (often larger) portion of the funds ahead to the next fiscal year. A number of education programs are "forward funded", meaning that funding is provided in advance -- an attempt to allow school and school districts to plan ahead for budgeting. Federal government budgeters have taken advantage of the flexibility this provides in order to shift dollars out of current year budgets and provide the appearance of lower immediate spending amounts. The FY 2009 budget provides that $16,617,059,000, of which $8,409,108,000 shall become available on July 1, 2009, and shall remain available through September 30, 2010, and of which $7,934,756,000 shall become available on October 1, 2009, and shall remain available through September 30, 2010, for academic year 2009-2010.
In addition to the new assessments, States would be required, by 2011-12, to use a graduation rate definition that meets the conditions established by the National Governors Association, and would be required to make significant annual improvement in the graduation rate a condition for making AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress). The Administration proposes to provide additional resources at the high school level to help carry out these reforms by "realigning Title I funding so that local allocations to high schools more closely reflect the enrollment of students from low-income families in those schools." LEA would be required to demonstrate that the proportion of Title I, Part A funds allocated to their high schools is at least 90 percent of the share of low-income students enrolled in those schools. The budget documents argue that, "Under current law, the share of Title I dollars reaching grades 9-12 has ranged from just 8-10 percent over the past decade, even though during that period high schools enrolled about one-fifth of the low-income K-12 students who are the focus of Title I."
As part of an NCLB renewal package, the Administration proposes to "help ensure that States and school districts have the resources to carry out effective restructuring and other interventions" by repealing the section 1003(e) hold-harmless provision and permitting States to withhold the full 4 percent for school improvement even if it reduces regular Title I, Part A allocations to LEAs below the prior-year level. This provision often prevents States from withholding the full 4 percent, and occasionally prohibits States from withholding any improvement funding.
For the Impact Aid program in reauthorization, the Administration states that it will "improve the Impact Aid funding formulas, achieving greater equity in allocations, particularly in Basic Support Payments."
For the Migrant Education Program, of which California typically receives about one-third, the FY 2009 budget proposes an increase from $379.8 million to $399.8 million. For the Neglected and Delinquent program, the budget calls for an increase from $48.9 million to $51.9 million.
Department of Education supplementary budget materials state that the Administration's reauthorization proposal for the program would "improve and simplify the State allocation formula and ensure that allocations respond to shifts in State counts of migrant students; improve targeting of services to migrant students by strengthening the program purpose language and sharpening the provisions that determine which students receive priority for program services; increase the set-aside for migrant coordination activities (from $10 million to $12.5 million); and add a new authority to set aside up to $5 million of program funds over the life of the authorization for an evaluation of the program."
A number of other K-12 areas funded under the No Child Left Behind Act (which is up for reauthorization in 2009) would see funding remain relatively stable, and many would be level-funded.
For Impact Aid, which helps to replace the lost local revenue that would otherwise be available to educate federally connected children, the budget proposes level funding of $1.24 billion. Mathematics and Science Partnerships would receive level funding of $179 million. The "Troops to Teachers" program would continue at $14.4 million per year, and the Transition to Teaching would be level funded at $43.7 million. Level funding would also be provided for the Literacy Through School Libraries program ($19.1 million), Magnet School Assistance ($104.8 million), Voluntary Public School Choice ($25.8 million), Foreign Language Assistance ($25.7 million), Rural Education ($171.9 million), Ready-to-Learn Television ($23.8 million), Indian Education ($119.6 million), Education for Homeless Children and Youths ($64.1 million), and Training and Advisory Services under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act ($7 million).
Level funding of $57.1 million would be provided for Comprehensive Centers, a program that supports 16 regional centers for technical assistance that are located throughout the U.S., including San Francisco-based WestEd.
Also level-funded would be the High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program -- also known as HEP/CAMP. The programs, which return a substantial share of funding to California, would continue to receive $33.3 million in FY 2009, the same amount as in 2008.
The Budget would provide $3.1 billion for an array of School Improvement Programs, a significant reduction from $3.8 billion in 2008.
School Improvement Grants would be level-funded at $491 million. The 21st Century Learning Opportunities program would decline from $1.1 billion to $800 million, Charter School Grants would climb from $211 million to $236 million, and Teacher Quality State Grants would shrink by $100 million (from $2.9 billion to $2.8 billion).The program entitled Teaching American History would be reduced by more than half, from $118 million to $50 million, based largely on Department of Education findings of poor performance reviews.
A sharp reduction in the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE) program, from $121.9 million to $52.3 million, largely reflects a paring back of earmarks.
However, Reading First grants -- a priority of President Bush's Administration -- are slated for an increase from $393 million to $1 billion. Other priority programs for the President would see increases as well, including Striving Readers (from $35 million to $100 million) and the Teacher Incentive Fund (from $97 million to $200 million), and new money ($300 million) would be provided for a "Pell Grants for Kids" program that is aimed at Title I schools in restructuring status or high schools with significant dropout rates.
English Language Acquisition State Grants would grow by 4 percent, from $700 million to $730 million.
As noted, the 21st Century Learning Opportunities program would decline from $1.1 billion to $800 million. The Department's supplementary budget materials state that the Administration's NCLB renewal proposal would have the Department continue to allocate funding by formula to States, which would in turn award competitive grants to public or private nonprofit organizations to administer scholarships for students from low-income families who attend schools that have been identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Title I, or who attend schools with a graduation rate of less than 60 percent. In making awards, the Department would require States and their subgrantees to ensure the high quality of the academic component of the after-school programs at which students use their scholarships, and to ensure that those components are aligned with State educational standards. States would also have to explain in their applications how they would ensure that families can choose from a variety of high-quality providers, including faith-based and community organizations, and how they would align activities funded under this program with supplemental educational services provided under Title I. Although local projects could provide additional activities, such as recreation programs and arts, the primary use of Federal funds would be supporting efforts clearly geared toward generating higher academic achievement of disadvantaged students.
According to budget support documents, the proposed $100 million reduction from $2.9 billion to $2.8 billion for Teacher Quality State Grants "reflects a decision to increase investment in the Teacher Incentive Fund in order to expand support for State and local initiatives that introduce performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems and provide incentives for the most effective teachers to serve in the most challenging schools. While most teachers are now considered to be highly qualified, these teachers are not distributed equitably across all school districts. It is appropriate to shift a portion of funds to the Teacher Incentive Fund to promote these important compensation reforms and assist districts in their efforts to ensure that all students are taught by effective teachers."
The Administration budget proposes to replace the Advanced Placement program (ESEA I-G) with a combined Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs (America COMPETES Act VI-A-II). Total funding would be increased from $43.5 million under the old program to $70 million under the replaced program.
Support documents state, "Under the recently enacted America COMPETES Act, this program presents a new vision for advanced placement, as embodied in the President's American Competitiveness Initiative. As with the program authorized under Title I, Part G of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the purpose of the new AP/IB program is to support State and local efforts to increase access to advanced placement classes and tests for low-income students in order to better prepare them for success after high school. However, the new authority targets Federal support more specifically on the preparation of teachers to teach classes in the critical subjects of mathematics, science, and the critical foreign languages, and on encouraging more students from high-need schools to take and pass AP and IB courses and tests in those subjects. In addition, by requiring a 2-to-1 non-Federal-to-Federal match, it is designed to leverage Federal support in a manner that, over a period of years, will result in a dramatic increase in the creation of AP and IB programs in critical subjects in high-need schools. Further, by authorizing salary incentives to teachers who become qualified to teach AP and IB courses in the critical subjects or whose students pass the AP and IB tests in those subjects, it is designed to create additional incentives for the expansion of advanced placement programs in the schools that most need them. The request is an increase of $26.5 million over the 2008 appropriation for the Advanced Placement program authorized under ESEA. The request also includes appropriations language providing that fiscal year 2009 funds will first be used to pay continuation costs under the ESEA Advanced Placement Incentive (API) Grant program and to meet State needs for AP test fees under the ESEA program, with all remaining funds used under the new authority. The inclusion of this language would ensure that State needs for tests fees subsidies continue to be met and that grants made in prior years are not cut off. Of the requested amount, roughly $12 million would be required to fund State applications for the Test Fees program and approximately $11 million would fund API continuation grants under the ESEA program, leaving an estimated $47 million for new grants under the COMPETES Act authority. Funds available for new awards will support projects expanding AP offerings and participation in mathematics, science, and critical foreign languages."
The budget also proposed $858 million ($128 million less than the FY 08 omnibus bill provided) for Innovation and Improvement, which includes a wide range of programs from teacher incentives to book distribution programs. Several smaller programs were slated to be cut entirely including: School dropout prevention, Excellence in economic education, Mental health integration in schools, Arts in education, and Women's educational equity programs.
The Safe Schools and Citizenship Education programs operated under the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools would be reduced sharply, from $693 million in 2008 to $282 million in 2009. The reduction reflects the Administration's findings that, "the structure of the program is flawed, spreading funding too thinly to support quality interventions and failing to target schools and communities in greatest need of assistance."
The Administration states that, in its reauthorization package, is proposing to "consolidate SDFSC National Programs into a single, flexible discretionary program focused on four priority areas: (1) emergency management planning; (2) preventing violence and drug use, including student drug testing; (3) school culture and climate, including character education; and (4) other needs related to improving students' learning environment to enable those students to learn to high academic standards."
The President's Budget requests $1.37 billion for vocational education programs and adult learning aid (termed Career, Technical and Adult Education by the budget). The total would represent a $576 million reduction from the 2008 enacted level of $1.94 billion.
For adult education grants, the budget proposes $568 million, compared to $561 million in 2008. The state grants portion of the program would remain steady at $554 million -- all of the increase is slated for a doubling of the National Leadership Activities component of the program, from $7 million to $14 million.
For career and technical education, however, funding is zeroed out. According to the Administration, the request for no funding for activities under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 is "consistent with the Administration's policy of eliminating funding for programs that are unable to demonstrate effectiveness, are narrowly focused, or whose objectives would be better accomplished through other programs." A recent evaluation of the program "raised questions about the effectiveness of the program in helping prepare secondary students academically for the transition to postsecondary education and the workforce." The budget states that "the Administration believes that this goal would be better accomplished through funding increases and policy changes aimed at improving the quality of high school education, such as the high school reforms" included in the Administration's NCLB renewal proposals.
For Special Education grant programs, funded under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the budget includes $11.5 billion, nearly $1 billion more than the year before. According to support materials, the request includes an increase of $337 million, or 3.1 percent, that would maintain the Federal contribution toward meeting the excess cost of special education at about 17 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (APPE), and provide a per-child average of $1,658 for an estimated 6,796,000 children with disabilities.
All of the increased funds for Special Education would come in the Grants to States program. The Preschool Grants program would remain steady at $374 million and the Grants for Infants and Families would remain steady at $436 million.
| Federal Student Aid Programs: | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 |
| Pell Grants—Discretionary funding | 13,661 | 14,215 | 16,851 |
| Pell Grants—Mandatory funding (non-additive) | — | 2,030 | 2,090 |
| Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants | 771 | 757 | — |
| Federal Work Study | 980 | 980 | 980 |
| Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships | 64.9 | 63.9 | |
| Academic Competitiveness Grants | 850.0 | 395.0 | 960.0 |
| TEACH Grants | 7.0 | 14.0 | |
| Higher Education Programs: | |||
| Minority Serving Institutions—Discretionary funding | 435 | 432 | 293 |
| Minority Serving Institutions—Mandatory funding | — | 250 | 250 |
| TRIO programs—Discretionary funding | 828 | 828 | 828 |
| TRIO programs—Mandatory funding (non-additive) | — | 57 | 57 |
| GEAR UP | 303 | 303 | 303 |
| National Security Language Initiative | 24 | 26 | 59 |
The Administration's FY 2009 budget proposal includes $2.1 billion for Higher Education Programs.
The Budget proposes $74.4 million (down from $95 million) for Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). The Department's budget documents argue that this "20 percent reduction in discretionary support for new awards that is more than compensated for by the additional $100 million in mandatory funding provided for this program in 2008 and 2009 under the CCRAA", the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.
The 2009 budget repeats the President's request for funding for the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI), which would help address the need for skilled professionals with competency in languages critical to U.S. national security. The NSLI request includes $24 million for a new Advancing America Through Foreign Language Partnerships program, now authorized under the America COMPETES Act, which would make grants to institutions of higher education for partnerships with school districts for language learning from kindergarten through high school and into advanced language learning at the postsecondary level.
The request also would provide level funding of $885.2 million in combined discretionary and mandatory appropriations to maintain college preparation and college student support services for approximately 830,000 participants in the Federal TRIO Programs.
It proposes level funding of $303.4 million for an estimated 743,000 middle and high school students preparing for college through the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP). The GEAR UP funding total includes $121.8 million for state grants and $180 million for partnership grants.
Typically, California receives a relatively large share (15%) of GEAR UP funds, and a more modest portion of TRIO funds.
Level funding would be provided for several other Higher Education programs, including the Child Care Access Means Parents in School or CCAMPS program ($15.5 million), College Access Challenge Grants ($66.1 million), and International Education and Foreign Language Studies ($110 million).
For the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), the total spending would be decreased from $120.3 million to $37.4 million, though the decline is entirely due to the elimination of Congressional earmarks. In fact, the competitive grant program portion is slated for an increase from $13.6 million to $23.4 million and the International Consortia portion would nearly double, from $7.4 million to $13.3 million.
The 2009 Budget recommends total budget authority of $22.0 billion for student aid programs, a $1.1 billion reduction from the prior year's enacted level. The reduction comes despite the fact that Pell Grant budget authority would increase by $2.7 billion (to $18.9 billion); the cuts come largely due to changes in student loan costs and elimination of Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants.
The Budget calls for an increase in the Pell Grant program, which is used to help lower-income individuals attend college. The maximum annual discretionary grant per student would return to $4,310 under the President's stated plan (it had slid slightly in the last year, after having recently risen from a $4,050 maximum).
Budget tables predict spending of $18.9 billion in 2009 compared to $16.2 billion in 2008 and $13.6 billion in 2007. (These amounts include a mandatory portion of $2 billion for Pell Grants in FYs 2008 and 2009.)
With mandatory and discretionary Pell Grant spending combined, funds will reportedly be adequate to support a maximum award of $4,800 for FY 2009 (award year 2009-2010).
Referencing separate legislative approaches, the Administration predicts that nearly $20 billion will be needed between 2008 and 2017 for the Pell Grant expansion, with many of the costs underwritten by reductions in lender subsidies.
Importantly for California, Congress and the Administration recently collaborated to eliminate "tuition sensitivity" for the Pell Grant program. Tuition sensitivity elimination will improve California's share of Pell Grants. The provision, which limited the maximum grant to students at very low cost institutions, affecting students at only one institution nationwide -- the California Community College system. California received 11.9 percent of Pell grants to states in FY 2004.
The administration proposes several changes to the program, including the following:
The three Campus-Based Aid (CBA) programs are Federal Supplemental and Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Federal Work Study (FWS) grants and Federal Perkins Loans (PL). These programs provide student aid to campuses for distribution to low-income students and are apportioned to eligible recipients using a formula.
California historically receives an low share of CBA apportionment programs (no more than 10.4%) because of a provision in the statute that guarantees most funding to schools that have participated in the program the longest, rather than those schools that demonstrate the highest need. New campuses have a decided disadvantage compared to newer campuses.
Of the three CBA programs, the Budget proposes eliminating two. The SEOG program, which received $1.3 billion in both 2007 and 2008, would be eliminated. SEOG provides grants -- via a different, campus-based mechanism -- to a similar set of targeted students as Pell Grants.
The Budget also recommends eliminating the Perkins Loan program, which the Administration considers "inefficient, duplicative, and poorly targeted." Perkins loans received $1.1 billion in 2006, $504 million in 2007, and $504 million in 2008.
The only CBA program that would remain, if the White House plan were to be accepted, would be the Work Study program. It would be level-funded at $980 million for 2008
The Budget again recommends eliminating the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP grants. Funded at $165 million in FY 2006 and 2007, and $162 million in 2008, California received 15.4 percent of these matching grants to needy students. States are awarded funding on the basis of their postsecondary education enrollment share.
The budget notes expected mandatory expenditures of $960 million (up from $395 million in 2008) for ACG and SMART grants. Academic Competitiveness Grants (ACG) are awarded to first- and second-year undergraduates who complete a rigorous high school curriculum. The National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grants to third- and fourth-year undergraduates majoring in physical, life, or computer sciences, mathematics, technology, engineering, or a critical foreign language. All funding is mandatory, so annual discretionary appropriations are not required.
To contact the California Institute, visit our contact page. To subscribe to the weekly California Capitol Hill Bulletin or announcements of upcoming events, visit our subscribe page. The California Capitol Hill Bulletin is an email and fax publication devoted to the nexus between California and Washington DC -- summarizing key Congressional or Administration activity from a uniquely or significantly California-oriented perspective. It is published free of charge on a weekly basis by the California Institute for Federal Policy Research and distributed to subscribed readers. To be removed from our lists or to change your memberships, visit our list management page.
The California Institute for Federal Policy Research ~ 1608 Rhode Island Ave, NW, Suite 213 ~ Washington DC 20036
Copyright © 1994-2008 ~ www.calinst.org ~ All Rights Reserved ~ Privacy Policy ~ Contact Us
This page was last modified on 02/05/08