Should States Have More Flexibility in Using Federal Education Funds? (S. 1752)
Do you support or oppose this bill?
What is S. 1752?
(Updated January 1, 2020)
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.
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.
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.
Impact
K-12 schools; states; and federal funding for schools.
Cost of S. 1752
A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.
Additional Info
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:
- Sponsoring Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) Press Release
- House Sponsor Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) Press Release
- Heritage Action (In Favor)
- National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE) Letter (Opposed, 2015)
Summary by Lorelei Yang
(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / skynesher)The Latest
-
SCOTUS Hears Arguments of Abortion Pill Mifepristone CaseUpdated March 27, 2024, 12:30 p.m. EST On Tuesday, March 26, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the mifepristone case, read more... Women's Health
-
IT: ⛑️ It's American Red Cross Giving Day, and... How will you give back today?Welcome to Wednesday, March 27th, philanthropists and entrepreneurs... It's American Red Cross Giving Day - a time to ensure the read more...
-
Moscow Concert Hall, Russia’s Deadliest Attack in DecadesOn Friday, March 22, at least four men fired automatic weapons into a sold-out show at the Crocus City Hall auditorium in read more... Public Safety
-
Discover Gravvy — A New Way to Support What Matters MostDiscover Gravvy — A New Way to Support What Matters Most Are you ready to optimize your giving? read more...