ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱǯȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱǯȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
¢ȱǯȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
¢ȱŘŘǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
ŚŖŗśŗȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
On January 15, 2009, the House Committee on Appropriations released a draft version of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The primary purposes of the act
focus on promoting economic recovery, assisting those most affected by the recession, improving
economic efficiency by “spurring technological advances in science and health,” investing in
infrastructure, and stabilizing state and local government budgets. As part of this act, funds would
be provided to several existing education programs administered by the U.S. Department of
Education (ED), including programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The ARRA would also
create new programs that would support school construction at the elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary education levels and provide general funds for education to support state fiscal
stabilization.
This report provides a brief overview of the key provisions related to education programs that are
or would be administered by ED that were included in the act under Title IX (Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education) and Title XII (State Fiscal Stabilization Fund). It also provides
estimates of state grants for programs for which these estimates are relevant and for which data
needed to produce the estimates are available.
The report will be updated as warranted by legislative action.
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Funding Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1
Funding for Elementary and Secondary Education......................................................................... 3
ESEA Programs Included in the ARRA.................................................................................... 3
Title I-A Grant to LEAs ...................................................................................................... 3
Title I-A School Improvement Grants................................................................................. 4
Education Technology......................................................................................................... 5
Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter School Facility Acquisition,
Construction, and Renovation.......................................................................................... 5
Fund for the Improvement of Education............................................................................. 5
Impact Aid Section 8007..................................................................................................... 6
IDEA Programs Included in the ARRA .................................................................................... 6
Funding for McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance in the ARRA........................................... 7
School Modernization, Renovation, and Repair ....................................................................... 7
Funding for Higher Education......................................................................................................... 8
Federal Pell Grant Program....................................................................................................... 8
Federal Work-Study Program.................................................................................................... 9
Student Aid Administration....................................................................................................... 9
Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Programs............................................................................ 9
Higher Education Modernization, Renovation, and Repair .................................................... 10
Federal Student Loans............................................................................................................. 10
FFEL Program Special Allowance Payments ..........................................................................11
Funding for the Institute for Education Sciences ...........................................................................11
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund ...................................................................................................... 12
ȱ
Table 1. Summary of Appropriations for Education Programs Included in Titles IX and
XII of the ARRA .......................................................................................................................... 2
Table A-1. Estimated Additional State Grants for Title I-A Grants to Local Educational
Agencies (ESEA) at an Appropriation Level of $11 Billion over FY2009 and FY2010 .......... 14
Table A-2. Estimated Additional State Grants for School Improvement (ESEA, Title I-A)
at an Appropriation Level of $2 Billion over FY2009 and FY2010 .......................................... 16
Table A-3. Estimated Additional State Grants for Education Technology (ESEA, Title II-
D) at an Appropriation Level of $1 Billion over FY2009 and FY2010 ..................................... 18
Table A-4. Estimated Additional State Grants for Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, Part B, Grants to States at an Appropriation Level of $13 Billion over FY2009 and
FY2010....................................................................................................................................... 20
Table A-5. Estimated Additional State Grants for Education of Homeless Children and
Youth (McKinney-Vento Act) at an Appropriation Level of $66 Million over FY2009
and FY2010 ................................................................................................................................ 22
Table A-6. Estimated State Grants for School Modernization, Renovation, and Repair at
an Appropriation Level of $14 Billion for FY2009.................................................................... 24
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-7. Estimated State Grants for Higher Education Modernization, Renovation, and
Repair at an Appropriation Level of $6 Billion for FY2009 ...................................................... 26
Table A-8. Estimated State Grants for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund at an
Appropriation Level of $79 Billion over FY2009 and FY2010................................................. 28
¡ȱ
Appendix. Estimated State Grants for Selected Programs ............................................................ 14
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 30
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 30
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
n January 15, 2009, the House Committee on Appropriations released a draft version of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The primary purposes of
O the act focus on promoting economic recovery, assisting those most affected by the
recession, improving economic efficiency by “spurring technological advances in science and
health,” investing in infrastructure, and stabilizing state and local government budgets. As part of
this act, funds would be provided to several existing education programs administered by the U.S.
Department of Education (ED), including programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Higher
Education Act (HEA). The ARRA would also create new programs that would support school
construction at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education levels and provide
general funds for education to support state fiscal stabilization.1
This report provides a brief overview of the key provisions related to education programs that are
or would be administered by ED that were included in the act under Title IX (Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education) and Title XII (State Fiscal Stabilization Fund).2 It also provides
estimates of state grants for programs for which these estimates are relevant and for which data
needed to produce the estimates are available. For some programs, estimates have also been
produced at the local educational agency (LEA) level. Due to space constraints, however, those
tables have not been included in this report but are available directly from the authors of this
report (see relevant contact information at the end of this report).
The report begins with a discussion of provisions related to elementary and secondary education.3
The next section of the report examines provisions related to higher education, followed by a
discussion of provisions related to the Institute for Education Sciences. The report concludes with
an examination of the proposed State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.
ȱ ȱ
Under Titles IX and XII, the ARRA would provide about $145 billion for education programs that
are or would be administered by ED.4 Table 1 provides an overview of the specific funding
provided under these titles. The remainder of this report provides a more detailed discussion of
the specific funding provisions.
1 Relevant proposed statutory language is included in ARRA Title IX, Subtitle C; and Title XIII.
2 This report does not address funds provided for Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research.
3 Textual analysis of the ARRA is based on the draft bill released by the House Committee on Appropriations, January
15, 2009, available online at [http://appropriations.house.gov/].
4 As discussed in a subsequent section of the report, a portion of the funds provided to states through the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund could be used for non-education-related purposes. For purposes of determining the total amount of
funds that would be available, it is assumed that all the funds provided through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
would be used for education.
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table 1. Summary of Appropriations for Education Programs
Included in Titles IX and XII of the ARRA
Program
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
Total Appropriation ($)
Title I-A Grants to States
(ESEA)
5,500,000,000 5,500,000,000 11,000,000,000
Title I-A School
Improvement Grants (ESEA)
1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 2,000,000,000
Education Technology (ESEA
Title II-D)
500,000,000 500,000,000 1,000,000,000
Credit Enhancement
Initiatives to Assist Charter
25,000,000 0
25,000,000
Schools (ESEA Title V-B-2)
Fund for the Improvement of
Education (ESEA Title V-D)
200,000,000 0
200,000,000
Impact Aid Section 8007:
Construction (ESEA Title
100,000,000 0
100,000,000
VIII)
IDEA, Part B
6,000,000,000
7,000,000,000
13,000,000,000
IDEA, Part C
300,000,000
300,000,000
600,000,000
McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance
33,000,000 33,000,000 66,000,000
School Modernization,
Renovation, and Repair
14,000,000,000 0
14,000,000,000
Pell Grants (discretionary
appropriations)
15,636,000,000 0
15,636,000,000
Pell Grants (mandatory
appropriations)
683,000,000 831,000,000 1,514,000,000
Work-Study
Program 245,000,000 245,000,000 490,000,000
Student Aid Administration
50,000,000
0
50,000,000
Teacher Quality Partnership
Grant Programs
100,000,000 0
100,000,000
Higher Education
Modernization, Renovation,
6,000,000,000 0
6,000,000,000
and Repair
Institute for Education
Sciences
250,000,000 0
250,000,000
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
39,500,000,000
39,500,000,000
79,000,000,000
Total
90,122,000,000 54,909,000,000 145,031,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 21, 2009, based on the draft bill released by the House Committee on
Appropriations, January 15, 2009, available online at [http://appropriations.house.gov/].
Notes: Title IX of the ARRA also would provide $700 million for Vocational Rehabilitation Services for FY2010.
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱ
The ARRA would provide funding for a number of existing education programs, including the
two federal education programs that provide the largest amounts of funding for elementary and
secondary education—Title I-A of the ESEA and IDEA, Part B Grants to States. Several
additional programs authorized by the ESEA would also receive funding: School Improvement
Grants (Title I-A), Impact Aid Section 8007 (Grants for Construction, ESEA Title VIII),
Education Technology (ESEA Title II-D), the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE,
ESEA Title V-D-1), and Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter Schools (ESEA Title V-
B-2). In addition, funds would be provided for the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and
IDEA, Part C (Grants for Infants and Toddlers). The ARRA also would create a new program to
provide school construction funds to LEAs. Provisions applicable to each of these programs are
discussed below.
ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ
The primary source of federal aid to K-12 education is the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, particularly its Title I, Part A program of Education for the Disadvantaged. The ESEA was
initially enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-10), and was most recently amended and reauthorized by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110). Other major ESEA programs provide
grants to support the education of migrant students; recruitment of and professional development
for teachers; language instruction for limited English proficient (LEP) students; drug abuse
prevention programs; after-school instruction and care; expansion of charter schools and other
forms of public school choice; education services for Native American, Native Hawaiian, and
Alaska Native students; Impact Aid to compensate local educational agencies for taxes foregone
due to certain federal activities; and a wide variety of innovative educational approaches or
instruction to meet particular student needs.5 This section discusses ESEA programs that would
receive additional funding through the ARRA and, where appropriate, provides estimates of the
amounts that states would receive.
ȱ Ȭȱ ȱȱȱ
Title I, Part A, of the ESEA authorizes federal aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the
education of disadvantaged children. Title I-A grants provide supplementary educational and
related services to low-achieving and other pupils attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12
schools with relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families. Portions of each
annual appropriation for Title I-A are allocated under four different formulas—Basic,
Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG)—although funds
allocated under all of these formulas are combined and used for the same purposes by recipient
LEAs. Although the allocation formulas have several distinctive elements, the primary factors
used in all four formulas are estimated numbers of children aged 5-17 in poor families plus a state
expenditure factor based on average expenditures per pupil for public K-12 education. Other
factors included in one or more formulas include weighting schemes designed to increase aid to
5 For additional information about the ESEA, see CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer, by Wayne C. Riddle and Rebecca R. Skinner.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
LEAs with the highest concentrations of poverty, and a factor to increase grants to states with
high levels of expenditure equity among their LEAs.6
Under three of the formulas—Basic, Concentration, and Targeted Grants—funds are calculated
initially at the LEA level, and state total grants are the total of allocations for LEAs in the state,
adjusted to apply state minimum grant provisions. Under the fourth formula, Education Finance
Incentive Grants, grants are first calculated for each state overall, with state totals subsequently
suballocated by LEA using a different formula. A primary rationale for using four different
formulas to allocate shares of the funds for a single program is that the formulas have distinct
allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of LEAs or
states (e.g., LEAs with high poverty rates or states with comparatively equal levels of spending
per pupil among their LEAs).
The ARRA would provide an additional $11 billion for Title I-A Grants to LEAs, provided over
two fiscal years ($5.5 billion each year). Funds would be allocated through the targeted grant and
EFIG formulas only with $2.75 billion being allocated through each formula, each year.
Estimated state grants were calculated using these formulas after reserving 1% each year of the
total appropriation for the outlying areas and Bureau of Indian Education (as is done when
making regular Title I-A allocations). Appendix Table A-1 details the results of these
calculations.7
ȱ Ȭȱȱ ȱ ȱ
School Improvement Grants (authorized under ESEA, Section 1003(g)) provide supplementary
funds to states and LEAs for school improvement purposes. States are eligible to apply for these
grants, which are allocated in proportion to each state’s share of funds received under ESEA Title
I, Parts A, C (Migrant Education Program), and D (Neglected and Delinquent Children and
Youth). States must use at least 95% of the funds received to make subgrants to LEAs. Subgrants
made to LEAs must be between $50,000 and $500,000 for each school, and must be renewable
for up to two additional years if schools meet the goals of their school improvement plans.
Subgrants must be used by LEAs to support school improvement (ESEA, Sections 1116 and
1117). LEAs with the lowest-achieving schools and the greatest commitment to ensuring that
such funds are used to provide “adequate resources” to enable the lowest-achieving schools to
meet the goals under school and LEA improvement plans must be given priority in the awarding
of subgrants.
The ARRA would provide a total of $2 billion for School Improvement Grants to be allocated
over two fiscal years ($1 billion each year). Appendix Table A-2 provides estimated state grants
under this program.
6 For detailed information about the Title I-A formula, see CRS Report RL34721, Elementary and Secondary
Education Act: An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas, by Wayne C. Riddle and Rebecca R. Skinner.
7 Estimated grants to LEAs are also available for this program. Please contact Rebecca R. Skinner or Wayne C. Riddle
for these data.
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
ȱ¢ȱ
The EdTech program provides grants to state educational agencies (SEAs) and LEAs to increase
access to educational technology, support the integration of technology into instruction, enhance
technological literacy, and support technology-related professional development of teachers.
Funds are allocated to states in proportion to Title I-A grants, with a state minimum grant amount
of 0.5% of total funding for state grants. At least 95% of state grants must be allocated to LEAs
(and consortia of LEAs and other entities)—50% by formula, in proportion to Title I-A grants,
and 50% competitively.
The ARRA would provide $1 billion for EdTech over two fiscal years ($500 million each year).
Appendix Table A-3 provides estimated state grants under this program.
ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱǰȱ
ǰȱȱȱ
Under the Credit Enhancement program, competitive grants are awarded to enhance the
availability of financing for the acquisition, construction, or renovation of public charter school
facilities. Grants are made to at least three entities that have been approved by the Secretary of
Education (hereafter referred to as the Secretary) as having demonstrated innovative methods of
assisting charter schools in addressing the costs of acquiring, constructing, and renovating
facilities by enhancing the availability of loans or bond financing. The ARRA would provide a
one-time grant of $25 million for this program.
ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ
ESEA Title V-D authorizes a series of competitive grant programs intended to support a variety
of innovative K-12 educational activities. It includes both a broad authority for innovative
activities selected at the discretion of the Secretary of Education, and a series of required studies,
in Subpart 1. It also authorizes a number of specific activities (e.g., Elementary and Secondary
School Counseling Programs, Partnerships in Character Education, Smaller Learning
Communities) in Subparts 2 through 21.
The ARRA would provide funding specifically for Subpart 1 activities. A total of $200 million
would be provided for these activities over one fiscal year. The ARRA specifies that $99 million
of these funds must be used to provide competitive grants to LEAs, states, or partnerships of an
LEA, state, or both and at least one non-profit organization to develop and implement
performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems in high-need schools.8 These
systems must consider gains in student academic achievement as well as classroom evaluations
conducted at multiple times during the school year among other factors and provide educators
with incentives to take on leadership roles and additional responsibilities. Up to 5% of the $99
million shall be available for technical assistance, training, peer review of applications, program
outreach, and evaluation activities. Further, the ARRA specifies that a portion of these funds must
be used by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to conduct an evaluation of the impact of
8 The provisions related to the competitive grants to LEAs are included in the Department of Education Appropriations
Act, 2008 under the heading of “Innovation and Improvement” (P.L. 110-161).
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems supported by the competitive
grants on teacher and principal recruitment in high-need schools and subjects.
ȱȱȱŞŖŖŝȱ
The Impact Aid program compensates LEAs for “substantial and continuing financial burden”
resulting from federal activities. These activities include federal ownership of certain lands, as
well as the enrollments in LEAs of children of parents who work or live on federal land (e.g.,
children of parents in the military and children living on Indian lands). Section 8007 specifically
provides funds for construction and facilities upgrading to certain LEAs with high percentages of
children living on Indian lands or children of military parents. These funds are used to make
formula and competitive grants.
Under the statute, 40% of the funds appropriated under Section 8007 are used to make
construction payments by formula to LEAs receiving Impact Aid Section 8003 payments9 and in
which students living on Indian land constitute at least 50% of the LEA’s total student enrollment
or military students living on or off base constitute at least 50% of the LEA’s total student
enrollment. The funds available for construction payments are divided equally between these two
groups of LEAs (20% of the total Section 8007 appropriation going to each group). The
remaining 60% of Section 8007 appropriations are used to make school facility emergency and
modernization competitive grants. Emergency repair grants must be used to repair, renovate, or
alter a K-12 public school facility to ensure the health and safety of students and staff.
Modernization grants may be used to relieve overcrowding or upgrade facilities to support a
“contemporary educational program.”10
The ARRA would provide $100 million to Section 8007. While this would be a one-time grant,
funds would remain available through FY2010.
ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ
IDEA is the major federal statute that supports special education and related services for children
with disabilities.11 As a condition of accepting IDEA funding, the act requires that states and
LEAs provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to each eligible child with a disability.
The IDEA is divided into four parts. Part A contains the general provisions, including the
purposes of the act and definitions. Part B, the most often discussed part of the act, contains
provisions relating to the education of school aged children (grants to states) and a state grant
program for preschool children with disabilities (Section 619). Part C authorizes state grants for
programs serving infants and toddlers with disabilities, while Part D contains the requirements for
various national activities designed to improve the education of children with disabilities.
9 Section 8003(b) authorizes payments to LEAs to compensate them for the cost of serving certain groups of federally
connected children.
10 U.S. Department of Education, Purpose of the Impact Aid Section 8007B Discretionary Construction Grant Program,
at [http://www.ed.gov/programs/8007b/index.html].
11 For additional information about IDEA, see CRS Report RL32085, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA): Current Funding Trends, by Ann Lordeman.
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
The ARRA would provide additional funding for IDEA, Part B (grants to states) and Part C. For
Part B, the ARRA would provide a total of $13 billion with an additional $6 billion being
provided in FY2009 and an additional $7 billion being provided in FY2010. Appendix Table A-
4 details estimated state grants for FY2009 and FY2010. The ARRA would provide a total of
$600 million for Part C over two fiscal years ($300 million each year).
ȱȱ
¢Ȭȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ
This program, also known as the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, provides
assistance to SEAs to ensure that all homeless children and youth have equal access to the same
free, appropriate public education, including public preschool education, that is provided to other
children and youth.12 Funds are allocated to states in proportion to ESEA Title I-A grants, with a
state minimum of $150,000 or 0.25% of total grants, whichever is greater.
Competitive grants made by SEAs to LEAs under this program must be used to facilitate the
enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless children and youth. The LEAs may use
the funds for activities such as tutoring, supplemental instruction, and referral services for
homeless children and youth, as well as providing them with medical, dental, mental, and other
health services. In order to receive funds, each state must submit a plan indicating how homeless
children and youth will be identified, how assurances will be put in place that homeless children
will participate in federal, state, and local food programs if eligible, and how the state will
address such problems as transportation, immunization, residency requirements, and the lack of
birth certificates or school records.
The ARRA would provide a total of $66 million for this program over two fiscal years ($33
million each year for two years). Appendix Table A-5 provides estimated state grants for this
program.
ȱ£ǰȱǰȱȱȱ
Currently, there are no federal education programs dedicated to providing grants for the
modernization, renovation, and repair of schools. The ARRA would provide $14 billion for
FY2009 for these purposes. After a reservation of 1% for the outlying areas and the Secretary of
the Interior to provide assistance to Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, and a reservation of $6
million for the Secretary of Education for administration and oversight, the remaining funds
would be allocated to each state in proportion to the amount of FY2008 Title I-A funding received
by all the LEAs in the state relative to the total amount received by all the LEAs in every state.
States would be permitted to reserve up to 1% of their allocations for providing technical
assistance; developing a database that includes an inventory of public school facilities in the state
and their modernization, renovation, and repair needs; and developing a school energy efficiency
quality plan. The remaining funds would be allocated to LEAs in proportion to the amount of
FY2008 Title I-A funding received by the LEA relative to the total amount of funding received by
all LEAs in the state. The minimum grant amount for LEAs would be $5,000. Appendix Table
A-6 provides estimated state grants for this program.13
12 For more information about this program, see CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs
and Recent Legislation, coordinated by Libby Perl, pp. 4-5.
13 Estimated grants to LEAs are also available for this program. Please contact Rebecca R. Skinner or Wayne C. Riddle
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱ
The ARRA provides funding for several currently authorized higher education programs (the
Federal Pell Grant program, the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program, the Teacher Quality
Partnership Grant program) and provides additional funds for the administration of federal
student aid programs. It also amends the federal student loan programs by increasing borrowing
limits for undergraduate students. In addition, the ARRA provides $6 billion in grants to state
higher education agencies (SEAs) for higher education modernization, renovation and repair.
These provisions of the ARRA are briefly described below.
ȱȱ ȱȱ
Under the Federal Pell Grant program, Pell Grants are made available to low-income
undergraduate students to help offset their costs associated with obtaining a postsecondary
education.14 The Pell Grant program is the largest source of federal grant aid to postsecondary
students. Pell Grants are portable, in that the grant aid follows students to the eligible
postsecondary education institutions in which they enroll. The Pell Grant award amount is
primarily based on the financial resources that a student and the student’s family are expected to
contribute toward postsecondary education expenses—the student’s expected family contribution
(EFC). The Pell Grant award is considered to be the foundation of a student’s financial aid
package because all other forms of federal student aid (e.g., federal student loans) are awarded
after the Pell Grant award amount has been determined.
Both discretionary and mandatory appropriations fund the Federal Pell Grant program; and in
general, annual appropriations measures specify maximum individual Pell Grant award amounts.
A mandatory Pell Grant add-on has the effect of increasing the individual Pell Grant award
amount specified in discretionary appropriation measures.15 For the 2008-2009 academic year, the
maximum appropriated Pell Grant award amount was $4,731. This was comprised of a
discretionary maximum award amount of $4,241, and a mandatory add-on of $490.16 The ARRA
would make available $15.636 billion for the Federal Pell Grant program through September 30,
2011. These funds would be in addition to discretionary funds anticipated to be appropriated for
the Federal Pell Grant program as part of a separate FY2009 discretionary appropriations measure
under which the appropriated maximum Pell Grant award amount would be $4,360.17 As a result
of both bills, the discretionary maximum Pell Grant award amount for the 2009-2010 academic
year would be increased to $4,860. Combined with the mandatory add-on of $490, the maximum
Pell Grant award amount for the 2009-2010 academic year would be increased to $5,350.
(...continued)
for these data.
14 The Federal Pell Grant program is authorized under the Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1 of the HEA.
15 Mandatory funding for Pell Grant add-ons was enacted under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act (CCRAA;
P.L. 110-84). For additional information on the CCRAA, see CRS Report RL34077, Student Loans, Student Aid, and
FY2008 Budget Reconciliation, by Adam Stoll, David P. Smole, and Charmaine Mercer.
16 For additional information on the Federal Pell Grant program and maximum award amounts, see CRS Report
RL34654, The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, by David P. Smole et
al.
17 See draft report language to the American Recover and Reinvestment Act, available from the House Committee on
Appropriations, at [http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryReport01-15-09.pdf].
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
The ARRA also increases the mandatory appropriations provided for the Federal Pell Grant
program for FY2009 by $683 million for FY2009, and for FY2010 by $831 million.
ȱȬ¢ȱȱ
The FWS program is a need-based federal student aid program that provides undergraduate,
graduate, and professional students the opportunity for paid employment in a field related to their
course of study or in community service.18 Students receive FWS aid as compensation for the
hours they have worked. FWS aid may be provided to any student demonstrating financial need.
Awards typically are based on factors such as each student’s financial need, the availability of
FWS funds, and whether a student requests FWS employment and is willing to work.
Federal funding for the FWS program is provided to institutions of higher education (IHEs) for
the purpose of making available need-based federal student aid to students enrolled at those IHEs.
Funds are awarded to IHEs according to a complex two-stage procedure, with a portion of funds
allocated based on what the IHE received in prior years, and a portion based on an institutional
need-based allocation formula.19 Under the FWS program, students are compensated with a
combination of federal funding and a matching amount provided by the student’s employer,
which may be the IHE or another entity. In most instances, the maximum federal share of
compensation is 75%.
The ARRA makes available $490 million for the FWS program through September 30, 2011. Of
this amount, $245 million will be made available on October 1, 2009.
ȱȱȱ
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 makes available $50 million to the
Department of Education for student aid administration of the Federal Pell Grant, Academic
Competitiveness grant (AC) and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent
(SMART) grant, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Federal Family
Education Loan (FFEL), FWS, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL), and Federal Perkins
Loan programs. The bill also specifies that such funds shall be available for an independent audit
of the federal student loan purchase programs authorized under HEA, § 459A.20
ȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱ
Title II, Part A of the HEA authorizes Teacher Quality Partnership Grants for improving teacher
education programs, strengthening teacher recruitment efforts, and providing training for
18 The Federal Work-Study program is authorized under Title IV, Part C of the HEA. For additional information on the
FWS program, see CRS Report RL31618, Campus-Based Student Financial Aid Programs Under the Higher
Education Act, by David P. Smole.
19 The allocation procedures for the FWS program are examined in CRS Report RL32775, The Campus-Based
Financial Aid Programs: A Review and Analysis of the Allocation of Funds to Institutions and the Distribution of Aid
to Students, by David P. Smole.
20 For additional information on the Secretary’s temporary authority to purchase federal student loans made under the
FFEL program, see CRS Report RL34452, The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, by David P.
Smole.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
prospective teachers.21 The ARRA makes available $100 million for Teacher Quality Partnership
Grants.
ȱȱ£ǰȱǰȱȱȱ
The ARRA makes available $6 billion for grants to state higher education agencies for higher
education modernization, renovation, and repair. SEAs may make subgrants to public and private
not-for-profit postsecondary schools to modernize, renovate, or repair facilities that are primarily
used for instruction, research, or student housing.
Grants will be allocated to SEAs in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and each of the
outlying areas in proportion to the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate students
enrolled in public and private not-for-profit postsecondary education schools in each jurisdiction.
Of the funds made available for the program, $6 million is reserved for the Secretary of
Education for administration and oversight. Appendix Table A-7 provides estimated grant
allocation to SEAs in each state and outlying area.
ȱȱȱ
The federal government operates two major student loan programs: the FFEL program,
authorized under Title IV, Part B of the Higher Education Act (HEA), and the DL program,
authorized under Title IV, Part D of the HEA. These programs make available loans to
undergraduate, graduate and professional students, and the parents of undergraduate dependent
students, to help them finance the costs of postsecondary education. The loans made through the
FFEL and DL programs are low-interest loans, with maximum interest rates for each type of loan
established by statute. Subsidized Stafford Loans are need-based loans and are only available to
students demonstrating financial need. The Secretary pays the interest that accrues on Subsidized
Stafford Loans while borrowers are in school, during a six-month grace period, and during
authorized periods of deferment. Unsubsidized Stafford Loans and PLUS Loans are non-need-
based loans and are available to borrowers without regard to their financial need. Borrowers are
fully responsible for paying the interest that accrues on these loans.
The amounts students may borrow in need-based Subsidized Stafford Loans and non-need-based
Unsubsidized Stafford Loans are constrained by statutory loan limits. One set of limits applies to
the annual and aggregate amounts students may borrow in Subsidized Stafford Loans. Another set
of limits applies to the total annual and aggregate amounts students my borrow in combined
Subsidized Stafford Loans and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans (hereafter, referred to as total
Stafford Loans). The terms and conditions for Subsidized Stafford Loans are more favorable to
students than for Unsubsidized Stafford Loans.
Until the enactment of the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act (ECASLA; P.L. 110-
227), the same annual Subsidized Stafford Loan limits and total Stafford Loan limits applied to
dependent undergraduate students for each comparable educational level. However, annual total
Stafford Loan limits that were higher than annual Subsidized Stafford Loan limits applied to
21 For additional information on Teacher Qualify Enhancement programs authorized under the HEA, see CRS Report
RL31882, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants (Title II, Part A of the Higher Education Act): Overview and
Reauthorization Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
independent undergraduate students, graduate and professional students, and dependent
undergraduate students whose parents are unable to obtain PLUS Loans, for each comparable
educational level.
The ECASLA increased annual and aggregate borrowing limits for total Stafford Loans for
dependent undergraduate students, independent undergraduate students, and dependent
undergraduate students whose parents are unable to obtain a PLUS Loan, effective for loans first
disbursed on or after July 1, 2008. Technical changes to these amended loan limits were made
under the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA; P.L. 110-315). In general, annual total
Stafford Loan limits were increased by $2,000 for most undergraduate student borrowers under
the ECASLA. The ECASLA also increased aggregate borrowing limits for dependent
undergraduate students by $8,000, and for independent undergraduate students by $11,500.22
The ARRA would further increase annual and aggregate total Stafford Loan limits for
undergraduate student borrowers for loans first disbursed on or after January 1, 2009. In general,
annual total Stafford Loan limits would be increased by an additional $2,000 for most
undergraduate student borrowers. Also, aggregate total Stafford Loan borrowing limits would be
increased by an additional $8,000 for all undergraduate student borrowers.
ȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱ
Under the FFEL program, lenders receive a federal subsidy on the loans they make when the
interest rate paid by borrowers does not provide them a statutorily specified level of return. This
is called the special allowance payment (SAP). The SAP amount is determined quarterly under a
statutory formula. The special allowance paid for each loan is dependent on the formula in effect
when the loan was disbursed. The federal government pays any special allowance due lenders
from the time the loan is disbursed through the entire repayment period. On loans for which the
first disbursement was made on or after January 1, 2000, the SAP is determined through the use
of a series of special allowance payment formulas indexed to three-month Commercial Paper
(CP) rates. The ARRA would make a technical amendment to the SAP formula by temporarily
changing the index used from the three-month CP rate to the three-month London Inter-Bank
Offered Rate for United States dollars. This change would be applicable to loans first disbursed
on or after January 1, 2000 and would be effective for the quarter beginning October 1, 2008, and
ending December 31, 2008.
ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ
IES is charged with conducting research, evaluation, and dissemination activities in areas of
demonstrated national need. Its activities are designed to inform education practice and policy.23
The ARRA would provide $250 million in FY2009 to carry out Section 208 of the Educational
Technical Assistance Act (P.L. 107-279). Section 208 authorizes a competitive grant program for
SEAs to support the design, development, and implementation of statewide longitudinal data
22 For additional information on increased borrowing limits enacted under the ECASLA, and as amended by the
HEOA, see CRS Report RL34452, The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, by David P. Smole.
23 For more information about IES, see [http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/index.html?src=oc].
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
systems to enable states to use, manage, and analyze individual student data in ways consistent
with the ESEA.
The ARRA would provide $250 million in FY2009 to support statewide data systems, including
statewide data systems that include postsecondary and workforce information. Up to $5 million of
the funds may be used for state data coordinators or for awards to public or private organizations
to improve data collection.
ȱȱ£ȱȱ
The ARRA would provide $79 billion over FY2009 and FY2010 ($39.5 billion each year) for a
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. From the total annual appropriation, 0.5% would be reserved for
the outlying areas. The Secretary could reserve up to $12.5 million each year for administration
and oversight, including program evaluation. In addition, the Secretary would be required to
reserve $7.5 billion annually to provide State Incentive Grants and establish an Innovation Fund.
After making these reservations, $31.790 billion would remain each year for grants to states.
These funds would be allocated to states using two population measures: 61% of each state’s
grant would be based on the state’s relative population of individuals ages 5 to 24, and 39% of
each state’s grant would be based on the state’s relative total population. Appendix Table A-8
provides estimated state grants for FY2009 and FY2010 under this program.
Once funds are received at the state level, the state’s Governor is required to use at least 61% of
the state’s allocation to support elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education. More
specifically, the Governor is required to use these funds to provide the amount of funds, through
the state’s principal elementary and secondary education funding formula, that is needed to
restore state funding for elementary and secondary education to its FY2008 level. In addition, the
Governor must use these funds to provide the amount of funds to public institutions of higher
education in the state needed to restore state support for postsecondary education to the FY2008
level. If the amount of funds provided through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is insufficient to
restore state support for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education to the FY2008
levels, the Governor must allocate funds between elementary and secondary education and
postsecondary education in proportion to the relative shortfall in state support at each level of
education. If, however, funds remain after restoring funds to the FY2008 level, the Governor is
required to provide grants to LEAs based on their share of Title I-A funding for the most recent
year for which data are available.
The Governor may use up to 39% of the state funds for public safety and government services.
These funds may, however, be used to provide additional assistance for elementary and secondary
education and for public institutions of higher education.
In applying for funds from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, states must provide several
assurances to ED. First, the state must agree to maintain support for elementary and secondary
education at least at the level provided in FY2006, for FY2009 and FY2010; and the state must
agree to maintain support for public institutions of higher education at least at the FY2006 level,
for FY2009 and FY2010. Second, the state is required to take actions to comply with
requirements in Section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA that focus on the inequities in the distribution
of teachers between high- and low-poverty schools. Third, the state must establish a longitudinal
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
data system as described in Section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act.24 Finally, the
state must agree to meet two requirements related to state assessments. First, the state is required
to enhance the quality of its state assessments used to measure student achievement in reading,
mathematics, and science through activities described in ESEA, Section 6112(a), including
collaborating with institutions of higher education or other organizations to improve the quality,
validity, and reliability of state assessments. Second, the state must agree to comply with
requirements in the ESEA and IDEA related to the inclusion of children with disabilities and
limited English proficient students in state assessments, the development of valid and reliable
assessments for those students, and the provision of accommodations to facilitate their
participation in state assessments. It is unclear how many states would be able to provide all of
the required assurances.
24 For more information about the requirements of the America COMPETES Act, see CRS Report RL34328, America
COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues, by Deborah D. Stine.
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
¡ǯ ȱȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱ
Table A-1. Estimated Additional State Grants for Title I-A Grants to Local
Educational Agencies (ESEA) at an Appropriation Level of $11 Billion
over FY2009 and FY2010
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
Alabama 83,957,000
83,957,000
Alaska 17,340,000
17,340,000
Arizona 104,335,000
104,335,000
Arkansas 56,406,000
56,406,000
California 667,761,000
667,761,000
Colorado 53,108,000
53,108,000
Connecticut 40,379,000 40,379,000
Delaware 17,108,000
17,108,000
District of Columbia
20,480,000
20,480,000
Florida 279,521,000
279,521,000
Georgia 178,336,000
178,336,000
Hawaii 19,271,000
19,271,000
Idaho 19,058,000
19,058,000
Illinois 221,376,000
221,376,000
Indiana 94,232,000
94,232,000
Iowa 27,430,000
27,430,000
Kansas 36,800,000
36,800,000
Kentucky 82,509,000
82,509,000
Louisiana 113,607,000
113,607,000
Maine 20,631,000
20,631,000
Maryland 76,297,000
76,297,000
Massachusetts 87,594,000 87,594,000
Michigan 212,801,000
212,801,000
Minnesota 47,809,000
47,809,000
Mississippi 72,880,000
72,880,000
Missouri 84,799,000
84,799,000
Montana 19,057,000
19,057,000
Nebraska 24,516,000
24,516,000
Nevada 35,023,000
35,023,000
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
New Hampshire
17,216,000
17,216,000
New Jersey
105,578,000
105,578,000
New Mexico
45,213,000
45,213,000
New York
493,044,000
493,044,000
North Carolina
143,798,000
143,798,000
North Dakota
14,985,000
14,985,000
Ohio 199,943,000
199,943,000
Oklahoma 57,555,000 57,555,000
Oregon 54,775,000
54,775,000
Pennsylvania 221,808,000 221,808,000
Puerto Rico
211,896,000
211,896,000
Rhode Island
20,318,000
20,318,000
South Carolina
81,131,000
81,131,000
South Dakota
18,977,000
18,977,000
Tennessee 95,704,000 95,704,000
Texas 522,442,000
522,442,000
Utah 23,939,000
23,939,000
Vermont 14,500,000
14,500,000
Virginia 85,405,000
85,405,000
Washington 73,069,000 73,069,000
West Virginia
38,852,000
38,852,000
Wisconsin 76,302,000 76,302,000
Wyoming 14,129,000
14,129,000
Subtotal to states, DC,
and Puerto Rico
5,445,000,000 5,445,000,000
Outlying areas and BIA
55,000,000
55,000,000
Total 5,500,000,000
5,500,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 16, 2009.
Notes: Funds were appropriated through the Targeted and Education Finance Incentive Grant formulas only.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the
relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to
predict specific amounts states will receive.
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-2. Estimated Additional State Grants for School Improvement (ESEA, Title
I-A) at an Appropriation Level of $2 Billion over FY2009 and FY2010
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
Alabama 15,248,000
15,248,000
Alaska 3,205,000
3,205,000
Arizona 19,768,000
19,768,000
Arkansas 10,482,000
10,482,000
California 127,753,000
127,753,000
Colorado 10,001,000
10,001,000
Connecticut 8,238,000 8,238,000
Delaware 2,742,000
2,742,000
District of Columbia
3,325,000
3,325,000
Florida 47,587,000
47,587,000
Georgia 31,856,000
31,856,000
Hawaii 3,170,000
3,170,000
Idaho 3,534,000
3,534,000
Illinois 41,754,000
41,754,000
Indiana 17,711,000
17,711,000
Iowa 5,229,000
5,229,000
Kansas 7,496,000
7,496,000
Kentucky 15,149,000
15,149,000
Louisiana 20,888,000
20,888,000
Maine 3,692,000
3,692,000
Maryland 13,551,000
13,551,000
Massachusetts 16,572,000 16,572,000
Michigan 37,550,000
37,550,000
Minnesota 9,010,000 9,010,000
Mississippi 13,196,000 13,196,000
Missouri 15,955,000
15,955,000
Montana 3,121,000
3,121,000
Nebraska 4,589,000
4,589,000
Nevada 5,688,000
5,688,000
New Hampshire
2,712,000
2,712,000
New Jersey
20,385,000
20,385,000
New Mexico
7,994,000
7,994,000
New York
86,679,000
86,679,000
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
North Carolina
25,558,000
25,558,000
North Dakota
2,382,000
2,382,000
Ohio 36,148,000
36,148,000
Oklahoma 10,470,000 10,470,000
Oregon 10,534,000
10,534,000
Pennsylvania 40,267,000 40,267,000
Puerto Rico
35,761,000
35,761,000
Rhode Island
3,754,000
3,754,000
South Carolina
14,525,000
14,525,000
South Dakota
2,978,000
2,978,000
Tennessee 16,795,000 16,795,000
Texas 95,071,000
95,071,000
Utah 4,366,000
4,366,000
Vermont 2,375,000
2,375,000
Virginia 15,971,000
15,971,000
Washington 14,523,000 14,523,000
West Virginia
7,014,000
7,014,000
Wisconsin 14,051,000 14,051,000
Wyoming 2,260,000 2,260,000
Subtotal for states,
DC, and Puerto Rico
990,630,000 990,630,000
Outlying areas and BIA
9,370,000
9,370,000
Total 1,000,000,000
1,000,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 16, 2009.
Notes: Estimates are based each state’s FY2008 proportion of grants under ESEA Title I, Parts A, C and D.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the
relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to
predict specific amounts that states will receive.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-3. Estimated Additional State Grants for Education Technology (ESEA,
Title II-D) at an Appropriation Level of $1 Billion over FY2009 and FY2010
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
Alabama 7,489,000
7,489,000
Alaska 2,419,000
2,419,000
Arizona 8,948,000
8,948,000
Arkansas 5,070,000
5,070,000
California 57,112,000
57,112,000
Colorado 4,707,000
4,707,000
Connecticut 3,710,000
3,710,000
Delaware 2,419,000
2,419,000
District of Columbia
2,419,000
2,419,000
Florida 23,175,000
23,175,000
Georgia 15,420,000
15,420,000
Hawaii 2,419,000
2,419,000
Idaho 2,419,000
2,419,000
Illinois 19,011,000
19,011,000
Indiana 8,377,000
8,377,000
Iowa 2,485,000
2,485,000
Kansas 3,325,000
3,325,000
Kentucky 7,265,000
7,265,000
Louisiana 10,297,000
10,297,000
Maine 2,419,000
2,419,000
Maryland 6,533,000
6,533,000
Massachusetts 7,959,000
7,959,000
Michigan 18,283,000
18,283,000
Minnesota 4,372,000
4,372,000
Mississippi 6,421,000
6,421,000
Missouri 7,822,000
7,822,000
Montana 2,419,000
2,419,000
Nebraska 2,419,000
2,419,000
Nevada 2,852,000
2,852,000
New Hampshire
2,419,000
2,419,000
New Jersey
9,744,000
9,744,000
New Mexico
3,922,000
3,922,000
New York
40,714,000
40,714,000
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
North Carolina
12,634,000
12,634,000
North Dakota
2,419,000
2,419,000
Ohio 17,689,000
17,689,000
Oklahoma 5,191,000
5,191,000
Oregon 4,896,000
4,896,000
Pennsylvania 19,540,000
19,540,000
Puerto Rico
18,066,000
18,066,000
Rhode Island
2,419,000
2,419,000
South Carolina
7,202,000
7,202,000
South Dakota
2,419,000
2,419,000
Tennessee 8,457,000
8,457,000
Texas 44,484,000
44,484,000
Utah 2,419,000
2,419,000
Vermont 2,419,000
2,419,000
Virginia 7,945,000
7,945,000
Washington 6,584,000
6,584,000
West Virginia
3,451,000
3,451,000
Wisconsin 6,433,000
6,433,000
Wyoming 2,419,000
2,419,000
Subtotal for states, DC,
and Puerto Rico
483,875,000 483,875,000
Outlying areas, BIA, and
national activities
16,125,000 16,125,000
Total 500,000,000
500,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 16, 2009.
Notes: From the $500 million for each year, 2% was reserved for national activities. From the remaining funds, a
set-aside of 0.75% was reserved for the BIA and 0.50% was reserved for the outlying areas. The minimum grant
to states is 0.5%. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the
relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to
predict specific amounts states will receive.
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-4. Estimated Additional State Grants for Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, Part B, Grants to States at an Appropriation Level of $13 Billion
over FY2009 and FY2010
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
Alabama 98,194,000
112,536,000
Alaska 19,245,000
23,246,000
Arizona 94,766,000
114,895,000
Arkansas 58,445,000
67,182,000
California 662,464,000
760,020,000
Colorado 78,972,000
95,746,000
Connecticut 68,004,000
78,295,000
Delaware 17,363,000
21,051,000
District of Columbia
8,730,000
10,585,000
Florida 335,542,000
393,810,000
Georgia 166,597,000
201,983,000
Hawaii 20,419,000
23,509,000
Idaho 28,273,000
34,278,000
Illinois 266,431,000
306,009,000
Indiana 135,706,000
156,076,000
Iowa 62,442,000
71,891,000
Kansas 57,703,000
66,131,000
Kentucky 85,232,000
97,680,000
Louisiana 101,287,000
116,169,000
Maine 27,987,000
32,222,000
Maryland 107,215,000
122,959,000
Massachusetts 145,190,000
167,161,000
Michigan 216,300,000
247,891,000
Minnesota 102,500,000
117,470,000
Mississippi 63,063,000
76,229,000
Missouri 122,183,000
140,073,000
Montana 19,705,000
23,333,000
Nebraska 38,191,000
43,971,000
Nevada 35,639,000
43,208,000
New Hampshire
24,273,000
27,946,000
New Jersey
184,874,000
212,851,000
New Mexico
46,615,000
53,669,000
New York
388,267,000
447,023,000
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
North Carolina
166,943,000
202,403,000
North Dakota
14,099,000
17,093,000
Ohio 236,347,000
274,081,000
Oklahoma 79,096,000
92,780,000
Oregon 69,640,000
79,811,000
Pennsylvania 230,646,000
264,333,000
Puerto Rico
57,928,000
70,233,000
Rhode Island
22,367,000
25,751,000
South Carolina
92,643,000
108,146,000
South Dakota
16,795,000
20,362,000
Tennessee 121,475,000
147,277,000
Texas 502,108,000
608,757,000
Utah 56,039,000
67,942,000
Vermont 13,594,000
16,481,000
Virginia 152,088,000
174,301,000
Washington 119,518,000
137,206,000
West Virginia
38,843,000
44,722,000
Wisconsin 107,754,000
123,932,000
Wyoming 14,261,000
17,290,000
Total 6,000,000,000
7,000,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 16, 2009.
Notes: The FY2009 and FY2010 increases in IDEA, Part B funding are assumed to be in addition to a FY2009
IDEA, Part B appropriation of $11,505,211,000 (per the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Appropriations). Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in making comparisons of
the relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels as part of the legislative process. They are not
intended to predict specific amounts states will receive. In addition to other limitations, much of the data that
may be used to calculate final grants are not yet available.
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-5. Estimated Additional State Grants for Education of Homeless Children
and Youth (McKinney-Vento Act) at an Appropriation Level of $66 Million
over FY2009 and FY2010
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
Alabama 508,000
508,000
Alaska 150,000
150,000
Arizona 608,000
608,000
Arkansas 344,000
344,000
California 3,877,000
3,877,000
Colorado 320,000
320,000
Connecticut 252,000
252,000
Delaware 150,000
150,000
District of Columbia
150,000
150,000
Florida 1,573,000
1,573,000
Georgia 1,047,000
1,047,000
Hawaii 150,000
150,000
Idaho 150,000
150,000
Illinois 1,291,000
1,291,000
Indiana 569,000
569,000
Iowa 169,000
169,000
Kansas 226,000
226,000
Kentucky 493,000
493,000
Louisiana 699,000
699,000
Maine 150,000
150,000
Maryland 444,000
444,000
Massachusetts 540,000 540,000
Michigan 1,241,000
1,241,000
Minnesota 297,000
297,000
Mississippi 436,000
436,000
Missouri 531,000
531,000
Montana 150,000
150,000
Nebraska 150,000
150,000
Nevada 194,000
194,000
New Hampshire
150,000
150,000
New Jersey
662,000
662,000
New Mexico
266,000
266,000
New York
2,764,000
2,764,000
ȱȱȱ
ŘŘȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
North Carolina
858,000
858,000
North Dakota
150,000
150,000
Ohio 1,201,000
1,201,000
Oklahoma 352,000
352,000
Oregon 332,000
332,000
Pennsylvania 1,327,000
1,327,000
Puerto Rico
1,226,000
1,226,000
Rhode Island
150,000
150,000
South Carolina
489,000 489,000
South Dakota
150,000
150,000
Tennessee 574,000
574,000
Texas 3,020,000
3,020,000
Utah 150,000
150,000
Vermont 150,000
150,000
Virginia 539,000
539,000
Washington 447,000
447,000
West Virginia
234,000
234,000
Wisconsin 437,000
437,000
Wyoming 150,000
150,000
Subtotal states, DC, and
Puerto Rico
32,637,000 32,637,000
Outlying areas and BIA
363,000
363,000
Total 33,000,000
33,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 16, 2009.
Notes: Estimates are based on FY2008 grants under ESEA Title I, Part A, with no hold harmless applied.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the
relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to
predict specific amounts that states will receive.
ȱȱȱ
Řřȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-6. Estimated State Grants for School Modernization,
Renovation, and Repair at an Appropriation Level of $14 Billion for FY2009
State
Estimated State Grant for
Construction FY2009 ($)
Alabama 216,323,000
Alaska 39,236,000
Arizona 277,258,000
Arkansas 146,501,000
California 1,693,624,000
Colorado 136,267,000
Connecticut 117,211,000
Delaware 39,056,000
District of Columbia
48,127,000
Florida 654,876,000
Georgia 454,126,000
Hawaii 45,117,000
Idaho 46,936,000
Illinois 603,411,000
Indiana 248,023,000
Iowa 72,313,000
Kansas 94,595,000
Kentucky 209,489,000
Louisiana 297,724,000
Maine 52,432,000
Maryland 194,786,000
Massachusetts 236,189,000
Michigan 526,590,000
Minnesota 125,666,000
Mississippi 189,823,000
Missouri 227,618,000
Montana 44,064,000
Nebraska 60,839,000
Nevada 81,163,000
New Hampshire
38,427,000
New Jersey
289,948,000
New Mexico
114,687,000
New York
1,233,988,000
North Carolina
363,695,000
ȱȱȱ
ŘŚȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated State Grant for
Construction FY2009 ($)
North Dakota
33,957,000
Ohio 515,958,000
Oklahoma 149,861,000
Oregon 141,719,000
Pennsylvania 564,453,000
Puerto Rico
519,511,000
Rhode Island
53,911,000
South Carolina
208,717,000
South Dakota
40,676,000
Tennessee 242,353,000
Texas 1,315,800,000
Utah 61,076,000
Vermont 33,391,000
Virginia 228,537,000
Washington 191,432,000
West Virginia
100,962,000
Wisconsin 201,065,000
Wyoming 30,490,000
Subtotal for states, DC,
and Puerto Rico
13,854,000,000
Outlying areas and BIA
140,000,000
Oversight by the
Secretary
6,000,000
Total 14,000,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 16, 2009.
Notes: Estimated state grants are based on total FY2008 Title I-A grants to LEAs with hold harmless applied.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the
relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to
predict specific amounts states will receive.
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-7. Estimated State Grants for Higher Education Modernization, Renovation,
and Repair at an Appropriation Level of $6 Billion for FY2009
State
Estimated State Grant for
Construction FY2009 ($)
Alabama 138,871,000
Alaska 9,121,000
Arizona 113,201,000
Arkansas 54,124,000
California 736,418,000
Colorado 90,650,000
Connecticut 58,380,000
Delaware 18,144,000
District of Columbia
21,998,000
Florida 306,202,000
Georgia 160,015,000
Hawaii 20,934,000
Idaho 28,839,000
Illinois 256,048,000
Indiana 132,109,000
Iowa 79,021,000
Kansas 67,616,000
Kentucky 77,102,000
Louisiana 85,227,000
Maine 22,577,000
Maryland 98,966,000
Massachusetts 145,576,000
Michigan 211,454,000
Minnesota 115,202,000
Mississippi 58,842,000
Missouri 116,561,000
Montana 19,204,000
Nebraska 43,657,000
Nevada 32,168,000
New Hampshire
24,021,000
New Jersey
129,733,000
New Mexico
39,619,000
New York
398,806,000
North Carolina
187,457,000
ȱȱȱ
ŘŜȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated State Grant for
Construction FY2009 ($)
North Dakota
18,872,000
Ohio 224,042,000
Oklahoma 77,780,000
Oregon 68,215,000
Pennsylvania 257,395,000
Puerto Rico
71,233,000
Rhode Island
31,375,000
South Carolina
82,697,000
South Dakota
17,463,000
Tennessee 105,243,000
Texas 408,415,000
Utah 73,257,000
Vermont 15,211,000
Virginia 146,938,000
Washington 124,909,000
West Virginia
40,272,000
Wisconsin 116,174,000
Wyoming 11,276,000
American Samoa
616,000
Fed. State Micronesia
1,053,000
Guam 1,957,000
Marshall Islands
328,000
Northern Mariana Islands
319,000
Palau 335,000
Virgin Islands
762,000
Administration 6,000,000
TOTAL 6,000,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 16, 2009.
Notes: Estimated grants allocated in proportion to the number of full-time equivalent undergraduate students
enrolled in public and private not-for-profit institutions in each state as reported in the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) Fall 2007, 12-month enrollment component. Details may not add to totals due to
rounding.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in making comparisons of
the relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels as part of the legislative process. They are not
intended to predict specific amounts states will receive. In addition to other limitations, much of the data that
may be used to calculate final grants are not yet available.
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-8. Estimated State Grants for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
at an Appropriation Level of $79 Billion over FY2009 and FY2010
State
Estimated State Grants for Stablization
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
Alabama 480,399,000
480,399,000
Alaska 76,079,000
76,079,000
Arizona 650,565,000
650,565,000
Arkansas 292,590,000
292,590,000
California 3,927,400,000
3,927,400,000
Colorado 495,058,000
495,058,000
Connecticut 359,097,000
359,097,000
Delaware 88,067,000
88,067,000
District of Columbia
59,065,000
59,065,000
Florida 1,773,400,000
1,773,400,000
Georgia 999,831,000
999,831,000
Hawaii 128,065,000
128,065,000
Idaho 159,665,000
159,665,000
Illinois 1,356,775,000
1,356,775,000
Indiana 664,619,000
664,619,000
Iowa 312,797,000
312,797,000
Kansas 295,624,000
295,624,000
Kentucky 430,924,000
430,924,000
Louisiana 472,468,000
472,468,000
Maine 129,432,000
129,432,000
Maryland 582,052,000
582,052,000
Massachusetts 657,444,000
657,444,000
Michigan 1,065,263,000
1,065,263,000
Minnesota 540,398,000
540,398,000
Mississippi 318,531,000
318,531,000
Missouri 608,519,000
608,519,000
Montana 98,266,000
98,266,000
Nebraska 188,884,000
188,884,000
Nevada 254,880,000
254,880,000
New Hampshire
133,583,000
133,583,000
New Jersey
881,629,000
881,629,000
New Mexico
209,642,000
209,642,000
New York
1,995,929,000
1,995,929,000
North Carolina
919,198,000
919,198,000
ȱȱȱ
ŘŞȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated State Grants for Stablization
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
North Dakota
69,461,000
69,461,000
Ohio 1,192,513,000
1,192,513,000
Oklahoma 380,870,000
380,870,000
Oregon 373,577,000
373,577,000
Pennsylvania 1,264,043,000
1,264,043,000
Puerto Rico
431,393,000
431,393,000
Rhode Island
110,301,000
110,301,000
South Carolina
452,547,000
452,547,000
South Dakota
83,998,000
83,998,000
Tennessee 620,620,000
620,620,000
Texas 2,569,771,000
2,569,771,000
Utah 308,721,000
308,721,000
Vermont 63,195,000
63,195,000
Virginia 792,261,000
792,261,000
Washington 657,893,000
657,893,000
West Virginia
177,383,000
177,383,000
Wisconsin 581,098,000
581,098,000
Wyoming 54,211,000
54,211,000
Subtotal to states, DC, and Puerto Rico
31,790,000,000
31,790,000,000
Outlying areas
197,500,000
197,500,000
Administration and oversight
12,500,000
12,500,000
Secretary’s reservation for additional programs
7,500,000,000
7,500,000,000
Total 39,500,000,000
39,500,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 16, 2009, based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community
Survey (ACS) data.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the
relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to
predict specific amounts states will receive.
ȱȱȱ
Řşȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ ȱ
Rebecca R. Skinner
Ann Lordeman
Specialist in Education Policy
Specialist in Social Policy
rskinner@crs.loc.gov, 7-6600
alordeman@crs.loc.gov, 7-2323
David P. Smole
Wayne C. Riddle
Specialist in Education Policy
Specialist in Education Policy
dsmole@crs.loc.gov, 7-0624
wriddle@crs.loc.gov, 7-7382
ȱ
David Bradley, Analyst in Labor Economics, provided invaluable support in preparing this report.
ȱȱȱ
řŖȱ