Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 1752

Should States Have More Flexibility in Using Federal Education Funds?

Argument in favor

States, not the federal government, are best positioned to understand local educational needs. Accordingly, they should have greater flexibility in deciding how to use federal funds to best serve their students’ needs by funding certain programs or implementing school choice. This bill could improve education funds’ effectiveness without increasing federal funding levels for education.

SneakyPete's Opinion
···
09/07/2019
States, not the federal government, are best positioned to understand local educational needs. Accordingly, they should have greater flexibility in deciding how to use federal funds to best serve their students’ needs by funding certain programs or implementing school choice. This bill could improve education funds’ effectiveness without increasing federal funding levels for education. SneakyPete..... 👍🏻👍🏻S152👍🏻. 9.7.19......
Like (32)
Follow
Share
Ronald's Opinion
···
09/08/2019
Our Federal Government should not be involved in education. Parents, and local schools must be the only decision makers.
Like (11)
Follow
Share
Paul's Opinion
···
09/07/2019
You should word it, better use of federal funds. Distribution is calculated on attendance, property values, and income. Every US student should get the same opportunity, no matter were they live, and their parents income. Start with a start the school year bonus for elite educators that chose to teach in low income, and minority areas, with a goal of diversity.
Like (3)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This bill would allow states to use federal funds for educational vouchers, which hurt public schools and don’t provide improved educational outcomes. Allowing more funding for voucher programs could divert money towards religious private schools at public schools’ expense, in effect using public funds to support religious education — which not all taxpayers may support.

jimK's Opinion
···
09/07/2019
NO. There must be enforceable educational standards to ensure that our county’s youth get the kind and depth of education needed in today’s world. It is too important to our student’s future to leave these standards solely in the hands of localized (even State) decision makers who could choose to ignore or reinterpret those standards to save money or to not fully accommodate poorer localities. Besides, these days I really have trouble with most of the even good sounding proposals proffered by Republican’s- they all seem to ‘really’ be about some alternate agenda that provide profitable opportunities for supporters.
Like (93)
Follow
Share
Dawn's Opinion
···
09/07/2019
This bill would allow states to use federal funds for educational vouchers, which hurt public schools and don’t provide improved educational outcomes. Allowing more funding for voucher programs could divert money towards religious private schools at public schools’ expense, in effect using public funds to support religious education — which not all taxpayers may support.
Like (46)
Follow
Share
ConcernedVoter's Opinion
···
09/07/2019
No. States should NOT have more discretion when it comes to providing a solid and standard education! No! A good solid and standard public education system creates a better, stronger, healthier and more prosperous economy and society for all of us.
Like (38)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
    IntroducedJune 5th, 2019

What is Senate Bill S. 1752?

This bill — the A PLUS Act — would give states more flexibility to decide how to use their federal education funding. Specifically, it would allow each state to receive federal elementary and secondary education funds on a consolidated basis and manage the funds to advance the state’s educational policy. States could use such funds for any educational purpose permitted by state law. However, they would have to make certain assurances that they will use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, abide by federal civil rights laws, advance educational opportunities for the disadvantaged, and use federal funds to supplement rather than supplant state funding. 

A declaration of intent would be formulated by a combination of specified state officials or by referendum and list the programs for which consolidated funding is requested. Each declaration should: 1) inform the public about its student achievement assessment system; 2) report annually on student progress toward the state's proficiency standards by specified student groups; and 3) provide for the equitable participation of private school children and teachers in the same manner as provided for under current law.

This bill’s full title is the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act.

Impact

K-12 schools; states; and federal funding for schools.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 1752

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) reintroduced this bill from the 115th Congress to give states more flexibility on how they spend money on education

“Montana’s students deserve the best education our schools can give them. Montana educators and administrators know what their students need to succeed better than DC bureaucrats. That’s why I introduced this bill to expand local control of our schools so we can return federal education dollars back where they belong — closer to the classroom.”

Original cosponsor Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) adds:

“[The A PLUS Act] provides flexibility by allowing local governments to opt out of onerous federal guidelines and requirements. We have to get Washington out of the way, especially when it comes to raising our youth. While the votes are not there today to successfully eliminate the Department of Education, this is a good step to bring education decision-making back to state and local governments.”

House sponsor Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) says this bill would empower parents, teachers and local administrators to better address the needs of students and schools in their communities

“Our North Carolina teachers and administrators have a tough job, one that is made harder by mandates from Washington that stymie opportunities for student growth. My A-PLUS Act will empower teachers and parents to ensure every child has access to a quality education, while lowering administrative burdens and allowing schools to focus on and invest in their most urgent needs – whether infrastructure, supplies or teachers."

Elsie Arntzen, Montana State Superintendent of Public Instruction, supports this bill. She says

“In Montana, we know that parents and local communities best understand the educational needs of their students. Education should not be driven by a top-down approach from the federal government. I want to thank Senator Daines for sponsoring the A-Plus Act in Congress which will give local schools flexibility to better serve their students.” 

Heritage Action supports this bill. Lindsey Burke, Director of the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation, says: 

“[The A PLUS Act would g]ive flexibility to states and local communities, reduce administrative costs and the federal compliance burden associated with accessing federal education funding; and free states and localities from their role as compliance entities subordinate to the federal government, making them accountable to parents and taxpayers instead.”

The National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE) expressed opposition to this bill when Sen. Daines first introduced it in 2015. In a joint letter with a number of other organizations, including the AFL-CIO, NAACP, and National PTA, it expressed concerns that this bill could lead to voucher programs: 

“[W]e oppose the incorporation of the A-PLUS Act or any version of an amendment that would allow Title I dollars to flow to private school institutions. The A-PLUS Act allows a state to use federal resources for any educational purpose permitted by state law. This means that a state with a school voucher program could redirect the bulk of its federal resources away from public schools towards private, religious schools as long as the state indicates they intend for the resources to assist “disadvantaged” students. The state would have complete discretion to distribute the dollars to any education entities they deem fit under state law regardless of the quality of these institutions and their ability to serve students who are struggling academically. Vouchers divert desperately-needed resources away from the public school system to fund the education of a few, select students, with limited, if any, real impact on student academic achievement. Instead of providing equal access to high quality education or setting high standards for accountability, voucher programs have proven ineffective, lack accountability to taxpayers, and deprive students of rights provided to public school students. The ‘choice’ in voucher programs lies with the schools –not with students or parents. Private schools may turn students away for a variety of reasons, while public schools are open to all.” 

The NCPE also contended that voucher programs don’t improve educational outcomes

“Vouchers do not improve academic opportunities. According to multiple studies of the District of Columbia, Milwaukee, and Cleveland school voucher programs, students offered vouchers do not perform better in reading and math than students in public schools. Moreover, voucher programs offer little accountability to taxpayers. Private school voucher programs usually do not require participating private schools to comply with the same teacher standards, curriculum, reporting, and testing requirements as public schools.”

This legislation has eight Republican Senate cosponsors in the 116th Congress. Its House companion, sponsored by Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC), has 30 Republican House cosponsors

Last Congres, this legislation had six Republican Senate cosponsors. Its House companion, sponsored by Rep. Walker, had 95 Republican House cosponsors. Neither bill received a committee vote. Sen. Daines also introduced this bill in 2015.


Of Note: The Republican Party generally advocates for local control of education. In a 2016 interview with Education Week. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, expressed his conviction that then-candidate Trump would enforce education laws the way Republicans want by “transfer[ring] accountability out of Washington back to the states.” He also said that Trump told him he was “very much for local control.”


Media:

Summary by Lorelei Yang

(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / skynesher)

AKA

A PLUS Act

Official Title

A bill to allow a State to submit a declaration of intent to the Secretary of Education to combine certain funds to improve the academic achievement of students.

    States, not the federal government, are best positioned to understand local educational needs. Accordingly, they should have greater flexibility in deciding how to use federal funds to best serve their students’ needs by funding certain programs or implementing school choice. This bill could improve education funds’ effectiveness without increasing federal funding levels for education. SneakyPete..... 👍🏻👍🏻S152👍🏻. 9.7.19......
    Like (32)
    Follow
    Share
    NO. There must be enforceable educational standards to ensure that our county’s youth get the kind and depth of education needed in today’s world. It is too important to our student’s future to leave these standards solely in the hands of localized (even State) decision makers who could choose to ignore or reinterpret those standards to save money or to not fully accommodate poorer localities. Besides, these days I really have trouble with most of the even good sounding proposals proffered by Republican’s- they all seem to ‘really’ be about some alternate agenda that provide profitable opportunities for supporters.
    Like (93)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill would allow states to use federal funds for educational vouchers, which hurt public schools and don’t provide improved educational outcomes. Allowing more funding for voucher programs could divert money towards religious private schools at public schools’ expense, in effect using public funds to support religious education — which not all taxpayers may support.
    Like (46)
    Follow
    Share
    No. States should NOT have more discretion when it comes to providing a solid and standard education! No! A good solid and standard public education system creates a better, stronger, healthier and more prosperous economy and society for all of us.
    Like (38)
    Follow
    Share
    Not sure I trust what is going on with education. When states are rewriting history books and injecting religion into schools. Education has turned into indoctrination.
    Like (28)
    Follow
    Share
    NO! This is another blatant attempt by the Reds to further defund, minimize Public schools and to extend funding for PRIVATE charter schools.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    This would be abused so much by states. It’s a bad idea as it would allow them to use the money however they want, pretty much.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Another’s Republican bill that sounds good until you peel the onion back to expose it’s true intent. Assholes!
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely not.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    No, no and no
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Another proposal that will destroy public education!
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    No, no, and no. Money needs to be used to support public schools.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Coming from the Senate, I am suspicious.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    NO. Against. Although States, not the federal government, are best positioned to understand local educational needs. Accordingly, they should have greater flexibility in deciding how to use federal funds to best serve their students’ needs by funding certain programs or implementing school choice. The Fedeeral Government(Us) should just make a required and level playing field for all students of a certain grade or level. This assuring that the students are all at that basic level. Then if the State wants to go further in the advancement of the students education, then by all means do it. This is one way a State can attract the citizens to their State. BUT For the fact that this bill 'COULD' (key word) improve education funds’ effectiveness, without increasing federal funding levels for education. I DO have trouble with just authorizing in my eyes something written and put forth by the Republicans w/out fully vetting it out and following the money. And on this Bill, it seems to be the 'Religious Right' who's backing it and whom it benefits in the long run. As it would allow states to use federal funds for educational vouchers, which hurt public schools and don’t provide the improved educational outcomes we seek and/or are paying for. Allowing more funding for voucher programs 'COULD' divert money towards religious private schools at the public schools’ expense😉, in effect that's using public funds to support religious education — which is not up to the taxpayers to pay for a person's religious beliefs and the education the students to recieve along with that 'Religious Twist' they recieve at the Taxpayers expense & blessing. We are to have a separation of state and religion and I think its a good idea to just 'up the quality' of public schools. This way, you are creating a true meaning of no separation of the quality of a private or a public school and the ONLY thing is they go-to an all male/female and/or religious school that has that as the difference and option. And maybe they can afford to have smaller classrooms in a population sense and be able to tend to the student better and closer. Especially with this being at the EDUCATION level, don't you think at the very core we'd be telling the students what we set forth as a nation, while educating them under what would be the opposite in reality? I mean, the citizens say separation, yet they're on the 'hook' to actually pay for a person's religious upbringing? Not consistent. I get that I AM for states rights, but w/out specifics of where the actual money is going... I'm afraid of 'reappropriation of funds' when it's written as such. And I have a sneaky suspicion someone has the 'Religious Right' lining their constituency or personal pockets with platinum let's say😉 So I have to say no🤓
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Our Federal Government should not be involved in education. Parents, and local schools must be the only decision makers.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely not. I can list of the states that would pour money in to corporate/religious/fascist programs all to indoctrinate them into a poisonous, recidivist mind set.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    States should use funds for public school education only. Not one cent to religious schools, charter schools, private schools. Not one cent to sports other than in-school physical education. Quit mandating all these tests! How can teachers teach and students learn when half the instructional time is wasted on worthless testing?
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    No-2 words; Betsy Devos
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Vouchers would hurt rather than help schools, teachers, and students.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Well, this will end up being a real “cluster” because no doubt there will be fraudulent activities in many municipalities. Some students will not get what others are given readily.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE