SENT BY FAX AND E-MAIL

May 1, 2000

Background

Federal dollars account for only seven percent of education funding. State and local governments provide the remaining 93 percent. The Federal government originally became involved in funding education programs because states were not targeting money to adequately address the needs of disadvantaged students. The ESEA, the largest federal investment in public schools, provides targeted resources to help ensure that disadvantaged students have access to a quality public education. Among other priorities, through Title I in particular, the ESEA provides funds to schools targeted specifically to raise the academic performance of disadvantaged students. Where 50 percent of the student population is economically disadvantaged, schools can use these funds to implement school-wide reform programs. Schools with smaller populations of poor students can target their funds toward assisting specific individuals. First passed in 1965, the ESEA must be reauthorized every five years.

In the Senate, during the current reauthorization round, Senator Judd Gregg (NH) successfully introduced two amendments, that would have a devastating affect on this critical $19.7 billion a year program:

• The first amendment, an expanded version of the "Straight A’s Act" (Academic Achievement for All Act), which passed in the House this past fall, would permit states to receive federal education dollars as a block grant, allowing them to allocate these funds in any way they choose. This measure would undermine 35 years of efforts under ESEA to ensure that Title I funds are targeted specifically toward poor and disadvantaged students. Moreover, states could conceivably use these federal dollars to finance vouchers and voucher-like programs for private schools.

• The second amendment, a Title I portability proposal, creates a Child Centered Program under which public schools or school districts could be required to use a student's per pupil expenditure to reimburse the cost of supplemental education services. As directed by parents, schools or school districts would reimburse tutorial service providers, including private entities as well as religious schools and other religious organizations. The amendment would require districts to make direct payments, like a voucher, to such private and public entities for provisions of educational services.

JCPA Position: The JCPA supports ESEA reauthorization, but opposes block grants, vouchers, and voucher-like initiatives that could allow the diversion of funds away from poor children. We also oppose "portability" proposals that allow these funds to leave the public school system. The JCPA opposes publicly financed vouchers for non-public school education, because such voucher programs would undermine public education and also would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Additional ESEA amendments:

• There is discussion of attaching to S. 2 various gun control amendments, including the modest gun control provisions passed last year as part of the Juvenile Justice Bill but stalled in conference committee.  Legislators should be urged to support meaningful gun control initiatives.

• An amendment may be introduced to eliminate federal funds for school efforts to prevent hate crimes.  The House version of ESEA reauthorization already repeals funding for these programs.  Legislators should be urged to oppose efforts to strip federal funding for school-based hate crimes prevention programs from S2.

If you have questions or need more information, please contact Reva Price 202-293-1649, rprice@thejcpa.org

Return to top of this page