ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱǯȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱǯȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
¢ȱǯȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
¢ȱřŖǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
ŚŖŗśŗȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
On January 28, 2009, the House passed H.R. 1, 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. Similarly, on January 27, 2009, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
ordered its version of the ARRA (S. 336) to be reported. S. 336 indicates that it provides
supplemental appropriations for “job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy
efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and state and local fiscal stabilization.”
Under both H.R. 1 and S. 336, 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 House and Senate bills would also create new programs that would support
school modernization, renovation, and repair 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 H.R. 1 under Division A, Title IX, Subtitle
C (Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education) and Title XIII (State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund) and in S. 336 under Title VIII (Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education) and
Title XIV (State Fiscal Stabilization Department of Education). 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......................................................................... 4
ESEA Programs Included in the ARRA.................................................................................... 4
Title I-A Grant to LEAs ...................................................................................................... 4
Title I-A School Improvement Grants................................................................................. 5
Education Technology......................................................................................................... 6
Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter School Facility Acquisition,
Construction, and Renovation.......................................................................................... 6
Fund for the Improvement of Education............................................................................. 6
Impact Aid Section 8007..................................................................................................... 7
IDEA Programs Included in the ARRA .................................................................................... 8
Funding for McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance in the ARRA........................................... 9
School Modernization, Renovation, and Repair ..................................................................... 10
Funding for Higher Education........................................................................................................11
Federal Pell Grant Program......................................................................................................11
Federal Work-Study Program.................................................................................................. 12
Federal Perkins Loan Program................................................................................................ 13
Student Aid Administration..................................................................................................... 14
Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Programs.......................................................................... 14
Higher Education Modernization, Renovation, and Repair .................................................... 14
Federal Student Loans............................................................................................................. 15
FFEL Program Special Allowance Payments ......................................................................... 16
Funding for the Institute for Education Sciences .......................................................................... 16
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund ...................................................................................................... 17
Fiscal Accountability..................................................................................................................... 19
ȱ
Table 1. Summary of Appropriations for Education Programs Included H.R. 1 and S. 336 .......... 2
Table A-1. Estimated Additional State Grants for Title I-A Grants to Local Educational
Agencies (ESEA) under H.R. 1 and S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of $11 Billion............... 22
Table A-2. Estimated Additional State Grants for School Improvement (ESEA, Title I-A)
under H.R. 1 and S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of $2 Billion.............................................. 25
Table A-3. Estimated Additional State Grants for Education Technology (ESEA, Title II-
D) under H.R. 1 and S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of $1 Billion......................................... 27
Table A-4. Estimated Additional State Grants for Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, Part B, Grants to States under H.R. 1 and S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of $13
Billion......................................................................................................................................... 29
Table A-5. Estimated Additional State Grants for Education of Homeless Children and
Youth (McKinney-Vento Act) under H.R. 1 at an Appropriation Level of $66 Million
and under S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of $70 Million ...................................................... 31
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-6. Estimated State Grants for School Modernization, Renovation, and Repair
under H.R. 1 at an Appropriation Level of $14 Billion and under S. 336 at an
Appropriation Level of $16 Billion............................................................................................ 34
Table A-7. Estimated State Grants for Higher Education Modernization, Renovation, and
Repair under H.R. 1 at an Appropriation Level of $6 Billion and under S. 366 at an
Appropriation Level of $3.5 Billion........................................................................................... 36
Table A-8. Estimated State Grants for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund under H.R. 1
and S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of $79 Billion ................................................................. 38
¡ȱ
Appendix. Estimated State Grants for Selected Programs ........................................................... 22
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 40
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 40
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
n January 28, 2009, the House passed H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA).1 The primary purposes of H.R. 1 focus on promoting economic
O 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. Similarly, on January 27, 2009, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations ordered its version of the ARRA (S. 336) to be reported. S. 336
indicates that it provides supplemental appropriations for “job preservation and creation,
infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and state
and local fiscal stabilization.” Under both H.R. 1 and S. 336, 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 modernization, renovation, and repair at the
elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education levels and provide general funds for
education to support state fiscal stabilization.2
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 H.R. 1 under Division A, Title IX, Subtitle
C (Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education) and Title XIII (State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund), and in S. 336 under Title VIII (Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education) and
Title XIV (State Fiscal Stabilization Department of Education). 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 begins with a discussion of provisions related to elementary and secondary education.
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 H.R. 1 and S. 336, the ARRA would provide about $145.045 billion and $140.104 billion,
respectively for education programs that are or would be administered by ED.3 The House bill
would provide funding over FY2009 and FY2010, while the Senate bill would make all funding
available in FY2009. Table 1 provides an overview of the specific funding provided under these
titles. The remainder of this report provides a more detailed discussion of the specific funding
provisions.
1 H.R. 1 was passed by a vote of 244-188 (Roll no. 46).
2 Relevant proposed statutory language is included in ARRA Title IX, Subtitle C; and Title XIII.
3 As discussed in a subsequent section of the report, a portion of the funds provided to states through the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund in H.R. 1 and S. 336 could be used for non-education-related purposes. For purposes of determining
the total amount of funds that would be available, it is assumed that all the funds provided through the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund would be used for education.
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table 1. Summary of Appropriations for Education Programs
Included H.R. 1 and S. 336
H.R. 1
S. 336
Program
Total
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
Total Appropriation ($)
FY2009 and FY2010
Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
Title I-A Grants to States (ESEA)
5,500,000,000
5,500,000,000
11,000,000,000
11,000,000,000
Title I-A School Improvement Grants
(ESEA)
1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
Education Technology (ESEA Title II-D)
500,000,000
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,000,000,000
Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist
Charter Schools (ESEA Title V-B-2)
25,000,000 0
25,000,000
0
Fund for the Improvement of Education
(ESEA Title V-D)
200,000,000 0
200,000,000
0
Impact Aid Section 8007: Construction
(ESEA Title VIII)
100,000,000 0
100,000,000
0a
IDEA, Part B
6,000,000,000
7,000,000,000
13,000,000,000
13,000,000,000
IDEA, Part C
300,000,000
300,000,000
600,000,000
500,000,000
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
33,000,000
33,000,000
66,000,000
70,000,000
School Modernization, Renovation, and
Repair
14,000,000,000 0
14,000,000,000
16,000,000,000
Pell Grants (discretionary appropriations)
15,636,000,000
0
15,636,000,000
13,869,000,000
Pell Grants (mandatory appropriations)
683,000,000
831,000,000
1,514,000,000
0
Work-Study Programb 245,000,000
245,000,000
490,000,000
0
Perkins Loan Program
0
0
0
61,000,000
Student Aid Administration
50,000,000
0
50,000,000
0
Teacher Quality Partnership Grant
Programs
100,000,000 0
100,000,000
100,000,000
Higher Education Modernization,
Renovation, and Repair
6,000,000,000 0
6,000,000,000
3,500,000,000
ȬŘȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
H.R. 1
S. 336
Program
Total
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
Total Appropriation ($)
FY2009 and FY2010
Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
Institute for Education Sciences
250,000,000
0
250,000,000
0
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
39,500,000,000
39,500,000,000
79,000,000,000
79,000,000,000
Office of the Inspector General
14,000,000c 0
14,000,000
4,000,000
Total 90,136,000,000
54,909,000,000
145,045,000,000
140,104,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 30, 2009, based on CRS analysis of H.R. 1, S. 366, and S.Rept. 111-3.
Notes: Title IX of H.R. 1 would provide $700 million for Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research for FY2010. Title VIII of S. 336 would provide $610 million for
Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research for FY2009.
a. While S. 336 would not provide funding separately for Impact Aid Section 8007, it would provide funding for Impact Aid Section 8007 under its School Modernization,
Renovation, and Repair program. This program would include a 2% set aside for Impact Aid Section 8007 but would modify the requirements of the current law with
respect to the distribution of funds and LEA eligibility for funds. This set-aside would provide $320 million for Section 8007.
b. H.R. 1 specifies that $245 million would become available on October 1, 2009. It does not specify when the remaining funds would become available. To ensure that
the full amount was included in this table, the remaining funds were included in the FY2009 column.
c. Funding for the Office of the Inspector General under H.R. 1 is included in Title I, Section 1107.
Ȭřȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱ
H.R. 1 and S. 336 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 Grants to LEAs (ESEA) and IDEA, Part B Grants to States.
Both bills would also provide funding for School Improvement Grants (ESEA Title I-A);
Education Technology (ESEA Title II-D); IDEA, Part C (Grants for Infants and Toddlers); and the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. H.R. 1, but not S. 336, would provide funding for
Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter Schools (ESEA Title V-B-2), the Fund for the
Improvement of Education (FIE, ESEA Title V-D-1), and Impact Aid Section 8007 (Grants for
Construction, ESEA Title VIII).4 Both bills 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 H.R. 1 and S. 336 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
4 While only H.R. 1 provides funding specifically for Impact Aid Section 8007, S. 336 would provide funds for the
same purpose based on similar provisions in its proposed elementary and secondary school construction program (see
subsequent discussion).
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
Śȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
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
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).
Both H.R. 1 and S. 336 would provide $11 billion for Title I-A Grants to LEAs. H.R. 1 would
provide the funds over two fiscal years (FY2009 and FY2010) with $5.5 billion appropriated for
each year. S. 336 would appropriate the $11 billion in FY2009. Under both bills, funds would be
allocated through the Targeted grant and EFIG formulas only. Half of the available funds for a
given fiscal year would be appropriated through each formula. For example, under H.R. 1 in
FY2009, $2.75 billion would be appropriated through the targeted grant formula and $2.75 billion
would be appropriated through the EFIG formula. 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.
While both bills would require funds to be used for the purposes authorized in Title I-A of the
ESEA, S. 336 would also add to requirements for LEAs receiving these funds. First, LEAs would
be required to use at least 15% of the funds received for activities serving children who are not
yet at a grade level at which the LEA provides a free public education and to support preschool
programs for children.7 Second, S. 336 would require each LEA to file a school-by-school listing
of per pupil expenditures from state and local sources for the 2008-2009 school year with the
state educational agency (SEA) by December 1, 2009.
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.
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 With respect to the preschool programs, the LEA may provide the services directly or through a subcontract with the
local Head Start agency or an agency operating an Even Start program, an Early Reading First program, or another
comparable public early childhood development program.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
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.
Both H.R. 1 and S. 336 would appropriate $2 billion for School Improvement Grants. The House
bill would provide $1 billion for this program in FY2009 and in FY2010 ($1 billion each year),
while the Senate bill would provide $2 billion for this program in FY2009. Table A-2 provides
estimated state grants under this program.
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.
Both H.R. 1 and S. 336 would appropriate $1 billion for EdTech. As with the previously
discussed ESEA programs, H.R. 1 would appropriate the funds over FY2009 and FY2010 ($500
million each year), while S. 336 would appropriate $1 billion for FY2009. 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. H.R. 1 would provide a one-
time grant of $25 million for this program. S. 336 would not appropriate additional funds 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.
H.R. 1, but not S. 336, would provide funding specifically for Subpart 1 activities. The House bill
would appropriate $200 million in FY2009 to support these activities. H.R. 1 specifies that $99
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
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 would be available for technical assistance, training, peer review of applications, program
outreach, and evaluation activities. Further, H.R. 1 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
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
H.R. 1 would provide $100 million to Section 8007 in FY2009. While S. 336 would not provide
funding separately for Section 8007, it would provide funding for similar purposes through its
proposed elementary and secondary construction program (see subsequent discussion).
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).
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].
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
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.
Both H.R. 1 and S. 336 would provide additional funding for IDEA, Part B (grants to states) and
Part C. For Part B, H.R. 1 would provide a total of $13 billion with $6 billion being provided in
FY2009 and $7 billion being provided in FY2010. Appendix Table A-4 details estimated state
grants for FY2009 and FY2010. H.R. 1 would provide a total of $600 million for Part C over two
fiscal years ($300 million each year).
S. 336 would provide additional funding for IDEA, Part B and Part C of $13.5 billion for
FY2009. The Senate report specifies that $13 billion would be available for Part B and $500
million would be available for Part C. Appendix Table A-4 details estimated Part B state grants
for FY2009. S. 336 also specifies that each LEA receiving funds for Part B use not less than 15%
of the funds for special education and related services for preschool children.
Actual and proposed Part B grants to states are often discussed in terms of the percent of the
“excess” cost of educating children with disabilities that the federal government will pay. The
metric for determining this excess cost is based on the national average per-pupil expenditure
(APPE). In 1975, with the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L.
94-142), it was determined that the federal government would pay up to 40% of this excess cost.12
For FY2008, the estimated percentage of APPE provided by the federal government under IDEA,
Part B was 17.2%. The estimated percentage for FY2009 based on regular appropriations and
funding providing through H.R. 1 would be 26.3%. For FY2010, based on regular appropriations
and funding provided through H.R. 1, the estimated percentage would be 26.8%. The estimated
percentage based on S. 366 and regular appropriations for FY2009 would be 37.6%.
Regarding allocations to outlying areas and freely associated states under Part B, in the past,
while the Secretary has had authority to reserve up to 1% of the total appropriation for grants to
these entities, the practice has been to increase the previous year allocation by the rate of inflation
according to the Consumer Price Index – Urban (CPI-U). If the Secretary continues this practice,
funding for outlying areas and freely associated states would be provided entirely through the
FY2009 regular appropriation. However, it appears that under the authority of IDEA, Section
611(b)(1), the Secretary would be permitted to provide up to 1% of the FY2009 appropriation and
stimulus for the outlying areas and freely associated states.
11 For additional information about IDEA, see CRS Report RL32085, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA): Current Funding Trends, by Ann Lordeman.
12 “In 1975, when the Act was originally enacted, Congress established the goal of providing up to 40% of the national
average per pupil expenditure to assist States and local educational agencies with the excess costs of educating students
with disabilities” H.Rept. 108-77, p.93
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Regarding the Part B allocation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, while IDEA requires the
Secretary to reserve 1.226% of the Part B appropriation (Sec,. 611(b)(2)), regular appropriations
acts have specified that the Secretary is to reserve the lesser of the amount allocated for the
previous year adjusted for inflation or the percentage increase in the funds appropriated for Part
B. S. 336, but not H.R. 1, also contains this provision. Since the rate of inflation would be less
than the increase in appropriations, the BIA funding would be provided entirely through the
FY2009 regular appropriation. Presumably, under H.R. 1, the Secretary would be required to
reserve 1.226% of the Part B appropriation for the BIA.
Under Part C, IDEA permits the Secretary to reserve not more than 1% of the appropriation for
allocations to the outlying areas. ED’s practice has been to allocate funds at the same level as the
previous year’s allocation, or to increase the previous year’s allocation by the rate of inflation
according to the CPI-U. If the Secretary continues this practice, funding for outlying areas and
freely associated states would be provided entirely through the FY2009 appropriation. However,
it appears that under the authority of Sec. 643(a)(1), the Secretary would be permitted to provide
up to 1% of the FY2009 appropriation and stimulus for the outlying areas and freely associated
states. The statute also requires the Secretary to reserve 1.25% of the total amount available to
states under Part C for payments to BIA. H.R. 1 and S. 336 make no changes to the funding
provisions under Part C for outlying areas and payments to BIA.
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.13 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.
H.R. 1 would provide a total of $66 million for this program over FY2009 and FY2010 ($33
million each year for two years). These funds would be allocated to states using the formula
authorized in current statute. States would make subgrants to LEAs on a competitive basis as is
done under current law. S. 336 would provide $70 million for this program in FY2009. These
funds would not be allocated to states using the current formula. Rather, funds would be allocated
in proportion to the number of homeless students identified by the state during the 2007-2008
school year relative to the number of homeless students identified nationally during the 2007-
13 For more information about this program, see CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs
and Recent Legislation, coordinated by Libby Perl, pp. 4-5.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
2008 school year. States would subsequently make subgrants to LEAs on a competitive basis or
using a formula based on a the number of homeless students identified by LEAS in the state.
Appendix Table A-5 provides estimated state grants based on H.R. 1 and S. 336. As data on the
number of homeless children in each state for the 2007-2008 school year are not yet available,
estimated state grants under S. 336 were calculated using data for the 2006-2007 school year, the
most recent year for which data are available.
ȱ£ǰȱǰȱȱȱ
Currently, there are no federal education programs dedicated to providing grants for the
modernization, renovation, and repair of elementary and secondary schools (hereafter referred to
as funds for school construction). Both H.R. 1 and S. 336 would provide funding in FY2009 for
these purposes.
H.R. 1 would provide $14 billion for FY2009 for school construction. 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.
S. 336 would provide $16 billion for FY2009 for school construction. The Senate bill would
reserve 1% of the total appropriation for the outlying areas and the Secretary of the Interior to
provide assistance to Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. These funds would be distributed by the
Secretary of Education and Secretary of the Interior, respectively, based on relative need as
determined by the Secretary of Education. Further, S. 336 would reserve $5 million for the
Secretary of Education for administration and oversight. The Senate bill would also reserve 2% of
the total appropriation to award grants to LEAs under Impact Aid Section 8007 (Grants for
Construction). While 40% of the Section 8007 funds would be made available by formula and
60% of the Section 8007 funds would be made available by competitive grant (as is done in
current law and would be done under H.R. 1), S. 336 modifies some of the eligibility and priority
criteria for receiving funds. For example, the 40% of funds provided through formula grants
would be based on each LEA’s proportion of military children and children living on Indian lands.
S. 336 drops the requirements that at least 50% of an LEA’s student enrollment must be
comprised of military children or children living on Indian lands to receive a grant, and that the
40% of funds available be divided equally between LEAs enrolling at least 50% military children
and those enrolling at least 50% children living on Indian lands.14
14 See Sec. 804(1)(B) for additional information about how funds would be distributed under Impact Aid Section 8007.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
After making these reservations, the remaining funds would be allocated to states in proportion to
each state’s share of FY2008 Title I-A funding. S. 336 would include a minimum state grant
amount of 0.5% of the total amount available to make state grants. States would be permitted to
reserve the lesser of 1% or $2 million for administration. Appendix Table A-6 provides estimated
state grants for this program.
Under S. 336, the remaining funds would be distributed to LEAs through formula and
competitive grants. The 100 LEAs that serve the most poor children nationwide would receive
formula grants based on their proportion of FY2008 Title I-A grants that were awarded to LEAs
in their state. These LEAs would not be permitted to receive a competitive grant under this
program. The remaining funds would be distributed to LEAs on a competitive basis. States would
be required to provide grants to high-need LEAs,15 in the aggregate, that are not less than the
share of Title I-A funds received by these LEAs in FY2008 relative to all LEAs in the state.16
States would also be required to provide grants to rural LEAs, in the aggregate, that are not less
than the share of Title I-A funds received by these LEAs in FY2008 relative to all LEAs in the
state. If funds remain after making these competitive grants, the remaining funds are to be
awarded to LEAs that did not already receive a competitive grant.
ȱȱ
ȱȱ
H.R. 1 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, H.R. 1 provides $6 billion in grants to state higher education
agencies (SEAs) for higher education modernization, renovation and repair. S. 336 provides
funding for the three HEA programs (the Federal Pell Grant program, the Federal Perkins Loan
program, the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant program); and provides $3.5 billion for grants
to SEAs for higher education modernization, renovation, and repair. Funding proposed to be
provided for higher education under H.R. 1 and S. 336 is briefly discussed 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.17 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
15 A high-need LEA is defined as an LEA that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with incomes below
the poverty line or an LEA in which not less than 20% of the children served by the LEA are from families with
incomes below the poverty line.
16 States are required to subtract from the total any funds received by an LEA that would receive a formula grant under
this program.
17 The Federal Pell Grant program is authorized under the Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1 of the HEA.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
(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.18 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 $490.19
H.R. 1 makes available $15,636 million 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 $4,360.20 As
a result of both appropriations measures, 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.
H.R. 1 also increases the mandatory appropriations provided for the Federal Pell Grant program
for FY2009 by $683 million, from $2,090 million, to $2,773 million; and for FY2010 by $831
million, from $3,030 million, to $3,861 million.
S. 336 makes available $13,869 for the Federal Pell Grant program through September 30, 2011.
These funds would be provided in addition to amounts to be separately appropriated for FY2009.
Funding provided under S. 336 would increase the maximum Pell Grant award amount by $281
above the maximum award amount to be provided for the 2009-2010 award year. It would also
increase the 2010-2011 maximum Pell Grant award amount by $400 above the 2008-2009
maximum Pell Grant award amount ($4,731). S. 336 also provides funds to reduce or eliminate
the Pell Grant shortfall.
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.21 Students receive FWS aid as compensation for the
hours they have worked. FWS aid may be provided to any student demonstrating financial need.
18 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.
19 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.
20 Draft report language to the American Recover and Reinvestment Act, pp. 59-60, available from the House
Committee on Appropriations, at [http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryReport01-15-09.pdf].
21 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.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
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.22 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%.
H.R. 1 provides $490 million for the FWS program through September 30, 2011. Of this amount,
$245 million will be made available on October 1, 2009. No funding is provided for the FWS
program under S. 336.
ȱȱȱȱ
The Federal Perkins Loan program operates as an institutional revolving loan fund under which
IHEs make available low-interest (5%) federal student loans to undergraduate, graduate, and
professional students enrolled in participating institutions. Undergraduate students may borrow
up to $5,000 per year; and graduate and professional students may borrow up to $8,000 per year.
Borrowers of Perkins Loans who are employed in certain public service jobs may qualify loan
cancellation benefits.
Under the Federal Perkins Loan program, federal funding is authorized to be provided for federal
capital contributions to the revolving loan funds of participating IHEs. Federal funding for
Perkins Loan federal capital contributions is provided to IHEs according to a two-stage formula
similar to that used for the FWS program—IHEs are allocated a portion of funds based on what
they received in prior years, and any remaining funds are allocated according to an institutional
need-based allocation formula.23 (Separately, federal funding is also provided to IHEs to
reimburse them for the cost of cancelling loans made to students who become employed in public
service jobs.)
S. 336 provides $61 million for the Federal Perkins Loan program to be allocated to participating
institutions as federal capital contributions to their revolving loan funds. Under H.R. 1, no
funding is provided for the Federal Perkins Loan program.
22 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.
23 The allocation procedures for Federal Perkins Loan program federal capital contributions 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.
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
H.R. 1 provides $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 enacted under
the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (ECASLA; P.L. 110-227), and
authorized under HEA, § 459A.24 Under S. 336, no funding is provided specifically for student
aid administration.
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
prospective teachers.25 Both H.R. 1 and S. 336 provide $100 million for Teacher Quality
Partnership Grants.
ȱȱ£ǰȱǰȱȱȱ
H.R. 1 and S. 336 both provide FY2009 funding for higher education, modernization, renovation,
and repair, with $6 billion provided under H.R. 1 and $3.5 billion provided under S. 336. Both
proposals are briefly described below.26
Under H.R. 1, $6 billion is provided for grants to state higher education agencies (SEAs) for
higher education modernization, renovation, and repair, with $6 million reserved for the Secretary
of Education for administration and oversight. 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. Estimated grant allocation to SEAs in each
state and outlying area are presented in Appendix Table A-7. 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. SEA must give priority in the
awarding of subgrants to minority serving institutions (e.g., those eligible for assistance under
Title III or Title V of the HEA), to IHEs that have been impacted by a major disaster or
emergency declared by the President, and IHEs that will carry out projects to increase their
24 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.
25 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.
26 For a more detailed description of the proposals in H.R. 1 and S. 336 for higher education modernization, renovation,
and repair, see CRS Report RS22894, School Construction, Modernization, Renovation, and Repair Issues, by Gail
McCallion
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
energy efficiency and that will comply with the United States Green Building Council Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating system.
Under S. 336, $3.5 billion is provided for grants to SEAs for higher education modernization,
renovation, and repair, with $3 million reserved for the Secretary of Education for administration
and oversight. Under the Senate bill, grants will be allocated to SEAs in the 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and each of the outlying areas in the same manner as proposed under the House bill
(see above). Estimated grant allocations to SEAs in each state and outlying area are presented in
Appendix Table A-7. The Senate proposal requires SEAs to make subgrants to community
colleges in amounts that are proportionate to the number of FTE undergraduate students attending
community colleges relative to the total number of FTE undergraduate students attending public
IHEs in the state.27 In addition, the Senate bill also incorporates the same criteria as the House bill
for giving priority consideration in the awarding of subgrants to IHEs (see above).
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.28 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 ECASLA, 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 independent undergraduate students, graduate and
27 It is important to note that under S. 336, while grants will be made to SEAs in proportion to the number of FTE
undergraduate students attending public and private not-for-profit IHEs in each state, SEAs will be required to make
subgrants to community colleges in proportion to the number of FTE undergraduate students attending only public
IHEs in the state.
28 For additional information on FFEL and DL program loans, see CRS Report R40122, Federal Student Loans Made
Under the Federal Family Education Loan Program and the William D Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: Terms
and Conditions for Borrowers, by David P. Smole.
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
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 $11,500.29
H.R. 1 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. No changes to loan limits are made
under S. 336.
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).30 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.
H.R. 1 makes 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. No changes to the SAP formula would be made by S. 336.
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.31
29 For a complete history of changes to loan limits for Stafford Loans, see Table B-2 in CRS Report R40122, Federal
Student Loans Made Under the Federal Family Education Loan Program and the William D Ford Federal Direct Loan
Program: Terms and Conditions for Borrowers, by David P. Smole.
30 For additional information on lender subsidies provided under the FFEL program, see CRS Report RL34578,
Economics of Guaranteed Student Loans, by D. Andrew Austin.
31 For more information about IES, see [http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/index.html?src=oc].
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Only H.R. 1 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
systems to enable states to use, manage, and analyze individual student data in ways consistent
with the ESEA. H.R. 1 specifies that these statewide data systems could include data systems that
contain 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
Both H.R. 1 and S. 336 would provide $79 billion for a State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. H.R. 1
would provide the funding over FY2009 and FY2010 ($39.5 billion each year), while S. 336
would provide $79 billion in FY2009. Both the House and Senate bills would make reservations
from these funds prior to making grants to states. Under H.R. 1, 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.32 The Senate bill would also reserve 0.5% of
the total appropriation for the outlying areas. It would also allow the Secretary to reserve $25
million for administration and oversight—the same level that the House would allow over the two
year authorization period. Finally, S. 336 would require the Secretary to reserve $15 billion to
provide State Incentive Grants and establish an Innovation Fund.33 This is the same amount of
funds the House would reserve for these activities over the two year authorization period.
After making these reservations, $31.790 billion would remain for FY2009 and for FY2010 for
grants to states under H.R. 1, while $63.580 billion would remain for grants to states in FY2009
under S. 336. Under both bills, 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
32 Under H.R. 1, the establishment of an Innovation Fund is left to the Secretary’s discretion.
33 Under S. 336, the establishment of an Innovation Fund is left to the Secretary’s discretion.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-8 provides estimated state grants under H.R. 1 and S. 336.
Under both the House and Senate bills, 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.
Under both H.R. 1 and S. 336, 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, both bills require states to provide
four assurances to ED. It is unclear how many states would be able to provide all of the required
assurances. Both H.R. 1 and S. 336 require that 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. They both also require that the state must
establish a longitudinal data system as described in Section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America
COMPETES Act.34
Both bills also require states to provide assurances related to the equitable distribution of teachers
between high- and low-poverty schools but approach this assurance in different ways. Under H.R.
1, the state is required to take actions to comply with requirements in ESEA, Section
1111(b)(8)(C) related to the provision of highly qualified teachers in schools receiving Title I-A
funding to eliminate inequities in the distribution of teachers between high- and low-poverty
schools and ensure that low-income and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other
students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of field teachers. Under S. 336, states would be
required to take action, including implementing activities authorized in ESEA, Section 2113(c),
such as reforming teacher and principal certification and establishing alternative routes for
teacher state certification, to increase the number and improve the distribution of “effective”
teachers and principals in high-poverty schools and LEAs.
Finally, under H.R. 1 and S. 336, the state must agree 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
34 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
ŗŞȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
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. S. 336 only
would also require states to improve state academic content standards and student academic
achievement standards Further, S. 336 would require states to ensure compliance with
requirements related to schools identified for corrective actions and restructuring under ESEA
Title I-A.35
Both H.R. 1 and S. 336 have comparable provisions regarding the authorized uses of funds by
educational agencies, schools and institutions of higher education (IHEs) under the proposed
State Fiscal Stabilization program. Funds for elementary and secondary education could be used
for any purpose authorized under the ESEA, IDEA, or the Carl. D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act (Perkins Act). Together, these Acts cover a very wide range of K-12 educational
activities, including the hiring of teachers and paraprofessionals. Funds could not be used for
capital expenditures except those authorized under those Acts (such uses are highly limited).
Under both S. 336 and H.R. 1, funds for higher education could be used by public IHEs for
educational and general expenditures, including expenditures “to mitigate the need to raise tuition
and fees for in-State students.” Funds could not be used by IHEs to raise their endowments or for
construction, renovation, or repair of facilities.
ȱ¢ȱ
In its consideration of education-related provisions in economic stimulus funding proposals, some
of the debate in Congress has centered on the extent to which states and LEAs should be given
added flexibility with respect to certain fiscal accountability requirements that current statutes
place on states and/or LEAs with respect to the use of federal education funds.
A long-standing principle of federal aid to elementary and secondary education is that federal
funding should add to, not substitute for, state and local education funding – i.e., that federal
funds should provide a net increase in financial resources for specific types of educational
services (such as the education of disadvantaged pupils or pupils with disabilities), rather than
effectively providing general subsidies to state and local governments. All of the fiscal
accountability requirements are intended to provide that all federal funds represent a net increase
in the level of financial resources available to serve eligible pupils, and that they do not ultimately
replace funds that states or LEAs would provide in the absence of federal aid.
One or more of three types of fiscal accountability requirements are applicable to major federal
K-12 education aid programs. The first two of these are common to many federal assistance
programs, while the third is unique to ESEA Title I-A. To meet the first requirement, maintenance
of effort (MOE), recipient LEAs must provide, from state and local sources, a level of funding
(either aggregate or per pupil) in the preceding year that is at least a specified percentage of the
amount in the second preceding year. A second fiscal accountability requirement provides that
federal funds must be used to supplement, and not supplant (SNS), state and local funds that
35 For more information about these requirements, see CRS Report RL33371, K-12 Education: Implementation Status
of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), by Gail McCallion et al.
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
would otherwise be available for the education of pupils eligible to be served under the federal
program in question. SNS provisions prohibit states and/or LEAs from using federal funds to
provide services which state and/or local funds have provided or purchased or which, in the
absence of federal funds, they would provide or purchase.
The third, distinctive, fiscal requirement under ESEA Title I-A is comparability—services
provided with state and local funds in schools participating in ESEA Title I-A must be
comparable to those in non-Title I-A schools of the same LEA. (If all of an LEA’s schools
participate in Title I-A, then services funded from state and local revenues must be “substantially
comparable” in each school of the LEA.) Since the comparability requirement only applies to
ESEA Title I-A, and is not currently a subject of debate with respect to the ARRA, it will not be
discussed further in this report.
With respect to current major federal K-12 education programs, for MOE, the requirement is that
in order to be eligible to receive ESEA Title I-A grants, LEAs must spend, from state and local
sources, in the preceding year an amount equal to at least 90% of the amount in the second
preceding year, on either an aggregate or per pupil basis (whichever is more beneficial to the
LEA). The ESEA provision is based on total state and local funding for public K-12 education,
not funding for specific purposes. If the requirement is not met, the LEA still receives a grant that
is reduced by the proportion to which the requirement is not met. The MOE requirement for Title
I-A and other ESEA programs may be waived by the Secretary in cases of “exceptional or
uncontrollable circumstances” or a “precipitous decline in the financial resources” (ESEA Section
9521).
In the case of IDEA, MOE applies to both SEAs and LEAs, and in general is based on 100%, not
90%, of previous spending levels. However, the IDEA includes a provision allowing LEAs, and
possibly some states, to reduce funding by an amount of up to 50% of annual increases in IDEA
allocations, if these funds are used for specified purposes.36 In addition, the MOE provision under
IDEA is based on spending for special education services for pupils with disabilities, not total
state and local spending. As under the ESEA, if the MOE requirement is not met, the SEA or LEA
still receives a grant that is reduced by the proportion to which the requirement is not met. In
addition, the MOE requirement under IDEA may be waived by the Secretary in cases of
“exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural disaster or a precipitous and
unforeseen decline in the financial resources of the State” (IDEA, Section 612(a)(18)). However,
both the MOE and the SNS requirements under IDEA may be waived only if “the State provides
clear and convincing evidence that all children with disabilities have available to them a free
appropriate public education” (FAPE) and the Secretary of Education concurs with this evidence
(IDEA Section 612(a)(17)(C)). Beyond this, it might be argued that IDEA incorporates an
effective MOE at the level of services to individual pupils, with its requirement that FAPE be
provided to pupils with disabilities in participating states.
In contrast to MOE, SNS is applied to both SEAs and LEAs under Title I-A, and there is
generally no authority for the Secretary of Education to waive SNS under ESEA, and only a very
restrictive authority to do so under IDEA, as it contingent upon the requirement in the previous
36 For an explanation of this provision, see CRS Report RL32716, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):
Analysis of Changes Made by P.L. 108-446, by Richard N. Apling and Nancy Lee Jones, pages 15-16. The LEA level
MOE under IDEA may also be reduced to adjust for certain enrollment or staffing trends or “costly expenditures for
long-term purchases. (See IDEA, Section 613(a)(2)(B) and (C)).
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
sentence. Authority to waive SNS, as well as is MOE, under ESEA programs was granted to areas
affected by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes for FY2006 and 2007.37 In particular, the broad
waiver authorities included in ESEA Title IX, Part D, and the Education Flexibility Partnership
Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-25, as amended) specifically exempt all three fiscal accountability
provisions from authority to be waived (beyond the specific MOE waiver authority noted
above).38
H.R. 1 and S. 336, the House and Senate versions of the ARRA, have somewhat different
provisions regarding MOE and SNS for K-12 education programs that would receive funding
under these proposals. Under both proposals, current statutory provisions regarding MOE and
SNS would implicitly apply to increased appropriations for ESEA Title I-A and the IDEA. Both
would apply SNS, but not MOE, to the new School Modernization program.39 For the Fiscal
Stabilization program, each proposal would apply to states (but not LEAs) a MOE based on state-
source revenues for public K-12 education in FY2006, but no SNS requirement.
Finally, S. 336 only has a broad authority for the Secretary of Education to waive MOE and SNS
requirements. This provision, in Section 1413, would appear to authorize the Secretary of
Education to waive for FY2009 and 2010 any MOE or SNS requirement that is administered by
ED. In cases where MOE is waived for these years, the level of effort required in FY2011 would
be the same as would have applied if the waiver had not been granted.
Compared to current law, authority to waive MOE under Title I-A or other ESEA programs might
have limited effect, since the requirement could be waived under current authority. Also, with
respect to the ESEA programs, the MOE requirement is set at 90%, not 100%, of current funding.
Broad authority for the Secretary to waive MOE under IDEA could have greater impact, as the
current authority is restrictive, although (as noted above), a limited degree of local or state
flexibility is allowed in implementation of the MOE requirement under IDEA.
In contrast, if authority were provided to waive SNS requirements, under either ESEA Title I-A,
IDEA, or the new School Modernization program, the impact could be substantial. First, there is
no current authority for such waivers, except for the restrictive policy under IDEA. Second, it is
possible that waivers of SNS could allow LEAs to provide services with federal funds in FY2009
and 2010 that were previously funded with state or local funds. Even after the waiver authority
was removed, it is possible that such services could continue to be funded with ESEA Title I-A or
other federal grants since that is what occurred in the immediately previous years—i.e.,
supplanting was no longer occurring.
37 See CRS Report RL33236, Education-Related Hurricane Relief: Legislative Action, by Rebecca R. Skinner et al., p.
8.
38 See CRS Report RL31583, K-12 Education: Special Forms of Flexibility in the Administration of Federal Aid
Programs, by Wayne C. Riddle, pages 8-12.
39 The House version only would apply an additional “prohibition regarding state aid,” explicitly prohibiting states
from considering federal funds under the School Modernization program as a local resource when allocating state
financial assistance for K-12 education.
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
¡ǯ ȱȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ
Table A-1. Estimated Additional State Grants for Title I-A Grants to Local
Educational Agencies (ESEA) under H.R. 1 and S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of
$11 Billion
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation S. 336 Total
FY2009 and Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
Alabama 83,957,000
83,957,000
167,914,000
168,091,000
Alaska 17,340,000
17,340,000
34,680,000
34,679,000
Arizona 104,335,000
104,335,000
208,670,000
205,649,000
Arkansas 56,406,000
56,406,000
112,812,000
112,943,000
California 667,761,000
667,761,000
1,335,522,000
1,335,341,000
Colorado 53,108,000
53,108,000
106,216,000
106,343,000
Connecticut 40,379,000
40,379,000
80,758,000
79,616,000
Delaware 17,108,000
17,108,000
34,216,000
34,215,000
District of Columbia
20,480,000
20,480,000
40,960,000
41,018,000
Florida 279,521,000
279,521,000
559,042,000
559,858,000
Georgia 178,336,000
178,336,000
356,672,000
357,099,000
Hawaii 19,271,000
19,271,000
38,542,000
38,543,000
Idaho 19,058,000
19,058,000
38,116,000
38,115,000
Illinois 221,376,000
221,376,000
442,752,000
440,703,000
Indiana 94,232,000
94,232,000
188,464,000
188,675,000
Iowa 27,430,000
27,430,000
54,860,000
54,892,000
Kansas 36,800,000
36,800,000
73,600,000
73,745,000
Kentucky 82,509,000
82,509,000
165,018,000
165,218,000
Louisiana 113,607,000
113,607,000
227,214,000
227,530,000
Maine 20,631,000
20,631,000
41,262,000
41,262,000
Maryland 76,297,000
76,297,000
152,594,000
152,470,000
Massachusetts 87,594,000
87,594,000
175,188,000
175,258,000
Michigan 212,801,000
212,801,000
425,602,000
425,553,000
Minnesota 47,809,000
47,809,000
95,618,000
95,726,000
Mississippi 72,880,000
72,880,000
145,760,000
145,948,000
Missouri 84,799,000
84,799,000
169,598,000
169,773,000
ȱȱȱ
ŘŘȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation
S. 336 Total
FY2009 and
Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
Montana 19,057,000
19,057,000
38,114,000
38,115,000
Nebraska 24,516,000
24,516,000
49,032,000
49,067,000
Nevada 35,023,000
35,023,000
70,046,000
70,149,000
New Hampshire
17,216,000
17,216,000
34,432,000
34,433,000
New Jersey
105,578,000
105,578,000
211,156,000
211,355,000
New Mexico
45,213,000
45,213,000
90,426,000
90,252,000
New York
493,044,000
493,044,000
986,088,000
986,252,000
North Carolina
143,798,000
143,798,000
287,596,000
287,841,000
North Dakota
14,985,000
14,985,000
29,970,000
29,970,000
Ohio 199,943,000
199,943,000
399,886,000
400,354,000
Oklahoma 57,555,000
57,555,000
115,110,000
115,241,000
Oregon 54,775,000
54,775,000
109,550,000
109,666,000
Pennsylvania 221,808,000
221,808,000
443,616,000
443,254,000
Puerto Rico
211,896,000
211,896,000
423,792,000
424,332,000
Rhode Island
20,318,000
20,318,000
40,636,000
40,605,000
South Carolina
81,131,000
81,131,000
162,262,000
162,427,000
South Dakota
18,977,000
18,977,000
37,954,000
37,954,000
Tennessee 95,704,000
95,704,000
191,408,000
191,633,000
Texas 522,442,000
522,442,000
1,044,884,000
1,045,949,000
Utah 23,939,000
23,939,000
47,878,000
47,936,000
Vermont 14,500,000
14,500,000
29,000,000
29,000,000
Virginia 85,405,000
85,405,000
170,810,000
170,947,000
Washington 73,069,000
73,069,000
146,138,000
146,295,000
West Virginia
38,852,000
38,852,000
77,704,000
77,794,000
Wisconsin 76,302,000
76,302,000
152,604,000
152,654,000
Wyoming 14,129,000
14,129,000
28,258,000
28,258,000
Subtotal to states, DC,
and Puerto Rico
5,445,000,000 5,445,000,000 10,890,000,000 10,890,000,000
Outlying areas and BIA
55,000,000
55,000,000
110,000,000
110,000,000
Total 5,500,000,000
5,500,000,000
11,000,000,000
11,000,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 30, 2009.
Notes: Funds were appropriated through the Targeted and Education Finance Incentive Grant formulas only. A
set-aside of 1% was reserved for the outlying areas and BIA for each fiscal year. Details may not add to totals
due to rounding.
ȱȱȱ
Řřȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
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-2. Estimated Additional State Grants for School Improvement (ESEA, Title
I-A) under H.R. 1 and S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of $2 Billion
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation S. 336 Total
FY2009 and Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
Alabama 15,248,000
15,248,000
30,496,000
30,496,000
Alaska 3,205,000
3,205,000
6,410,000
6,410,000
Arizona 19,768,000
19,768,000
39,536,000
39,536,000
Arkansas 10,482,000
10,482,000
20,964,000
20,964,000
California 127,753,000
127,753,000
255,506,000
255,506,000
Colorado 10,001,000
10,001,000
20,002,000
20,002,000
Connecticut 8,238,000
8,238,000
16,476,000
16,476,000
Delaware 2,742,000
2,742,000
5,484,000
5,484,000
District of Columbia
3,325,000
3,325,000
6,650,000
6,650,000
Florida 47,587,000
47,587,000
95,174,000
95,174,000
Georgia 31,856,000
31,856,000
63,712,000
63,712,000
Hawaii 3,170,000
3,170,000
6,340,000
6,340,000
Idaho 3,534,000
3,534,000
7,068,000
7,068,000
Illinois 41,754,000
41,754,000
83,508,000
83,508,000
Indiana 17,711,000
17,711,000
35,422,000
35,422,000
Iowa 5,229,000
5,229,000
10,458,000
10,458,000
Kansas 7,496,000
7,496,000
14,992,000
14,992,000
Kentucky 15,149,000
15,149,000
30,298,000
30,298,000
Louisiana 20,888,000
20,888,000
41,776,000
41,776,000
Maine 3,692,000
3,692,000
7,384,000
7,384,000
Maryland 13,551,000
13,551,000
27,102,000
27,102,000
Massachusetts 16,572,000
16,572,000
33,144,000
33,144,000
Michigan 37,550,000
37,550,000
75,100,000
75,100,000
Minnesota 9,010,000
9,010,000
18,020,000
18,020,000
Mississippi 13,196,000
13,196,000
26,392,000
26,392,000
Missouri 15,955,000
15,955,000
31,910,000
31,910,000
Montana 3,121,000
3,121,000
6,242,000
6,242,000
Nebraska 4,589,000
4,589,000
9,178,000
9,178,000
Nevada 5,688,000
5,688,000
11,376,000
11,376,000
New Hampshire
2,712,000
2,712,000
5,424,000
5,424,000
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation S. 336 Total
FY2009 and Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
New Jersey
20,385,000
20,385,000
40,770,000
40,770,000
New Mexico
7,994,000
7,994,000
15,988,000
15,988,000
New York
86,679,000
86,679,000
173,358,000
173,358,000
North Carolina
25,558,000
25,558,000
51,116,000
51,116,000
North Dakota
2,382,000
2,382,000
4,764,000
4,764,000
Ohio 36,148,000
36,148,000
72,296,000
72,296,000
Oklahoma 10,470,000
10,470,000
20,940,000
20,940,000
Oregon 10,534,000
10,534,000
21,068,000
21,068,000
Pennsylvania 40,267,000
40,267,000
80,534,000
80,534,000
Puerto Rico
35,761,000
35,761,000
71,522,000
71,522,000
Rhode Island
3,754,000
3,754,000
7,508,000
7,508,000
South Carolina
14,525,000
14,525,000
29,050,000
29,050,000
South Dakota
2,978,000
2,978,000
5,956,000
5,956,000
Tennessee 16,795,000
16,795,000
33,590,000
33,590,000
Texas 95,071,000
95,071,000
190,142,000
190,142,000
Utah 4,366,000
4,366,000
8,732,000
8,732,000
Vermont 2,375,000
2,375,000
4,750,000
4,750,000
Virginia 15,971,000
15,971,000
31,942,000
31,942,000
Washington 14,523,000
14,523,000
29,046,000
29,046,000
West Virginia
7,014,000
7,014,000
14,028,000
14,028,000
Wisconsin 14,051,000
14,051,000
28,102,000
28,102,000
Wyoming 2,260,000
2,260,000
4,520,000
4,520,000
Subtotal for states, DC,
and Puerto Rico
990,630,000 990,630,000 1,981,260,000 1,981,260,000
Outlying areas and BIA
9,370,000
9,370,000
18,740,000
18,740,000
Total 1,000,000,000
1,000,000,000
2,000,000,000 2,000,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 30, 2009.
Notes: Estimates are based on 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
ŘŜȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-3. Estimated Additional State Grants for Education Technology (ESEA,
Title II-D) under H.R. 1 and S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of $1 Billion
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation S. 336 Total
FY2009 and Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
Alabama
7,489,000 7,489,000 14,978,000 14,978,000
Alaska 2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Arizona
8,948,000 8,948,000 17,896,000 17,896,000
Arkansas
5,070,000 5,070,000 10,140,000 10,140,000
California 57,112,000
57,112,000
114,224,000
114,224,000
Colorado 4,707,000
4,707,000
9,414,000
9,414,000
Connecticut 3,710,000
3,710,000
7,420,000
7,420,000
Delaware 2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
District of Columbia
2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Florida 23,175,000
23,175,000
46,350,000
46,350,000
Georgia 15,420,000
15,420,000
30,840,000
30,840,000
Hawaii 2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Idaho 2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Illinois 19,011,000
19,011,000
38,022,000
38,022,000
Indiana
8,377,000 8,377,000 16,754,000 16,754,000
Iowa 2,485,000
2,485,000
4,970,000
4,970,000
Kansas 3,325,000
3,325,000
6,650,000
6,650,000
Kentucky
7,265,000 7,265,000 14,530,000 14,530,000
Louisiana 10,297,000
10,297,000
20,594,000
20,594,000
Maine 2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Maryland
6,533,000 6,533,000 13,066,000 13,066,000
Massachusetts
7,959,000 7,959,000 15,918,000 15,918,000
Michigan 18,283,000
18,283,000
36,566,000
36,566,000
Minnesota 4,372,000
4,372,000
8,744,000
8,744,000
Mississippi
6,421,000 6,421,000 12,842,000 12,842,000
Missouri
7,822,000 7,822,000 15,644,000 15,644,000
Montana 2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Nebraska 2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Nevada 2,852,000
2,852,000
5,704,000
5,704,000
New Hampshire
2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation S. 336 Total
FY2009 and Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
New
Jersey
9,744,000 9,744,000 19,488,000 19,488,000
New Mexico
3,922,000
3,922,000
7,844,000
7,844,000
New York
40,714,000
40,714,000
81,428,000
81,428,000
North Carolina
12,634,000
12,634,000
25,268,000
25,268,000
North Dakota
2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Ohio 17,689,000
17,689,000
35,378,000
35,378,000
Oklahoma
5,191,000 5,191,000 10,382,000 10,382,000
Oregon 4,896,000
4,896,000
9,792,000
9,792,000
Pennsylvania 19,540,000
19,540,000
39,080,000
39,080,000
Puerto Rico
18,066,000
18,066,000
36,132,000
36,132,000
Rhode Island
2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
South
Carolina 7,202,000 7,202,000 14,404,000 14,404,000
South Dakota
2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Tennessee
8,457,000 8,457,000 16,914,000 16,914,000
Texas 44,484,000
44,484,000
88,968,000
88,968,000
Utah 2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Vermont 2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Virginia
7,945,000 7,945,000 15,890,000 15,890,000
Washington
6,584,000 6,584,000 13,168,000 13,168,000
West Virginia
3,451,000
3,451,000
6,902,000
6,902,000
Wisconsin
6,433,000 6,433,000 12,866,000 12,866,000
Wyoming 2,419,000
2,419,000
4,838,000
4,838,000
Subtotal for states,
DC, and Puerto Rico
483,875,000 483,875,000 967,750,000 967,750,000
Outlying areas and
BIA
6,125,000 6,125,000 12,250,000 12,250,000
National activities
10,000,000
10,000,000
20,000,000
20,000,000
Total 500,000,000
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,000,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 30, 2009.
Notes: From each fiscal year’s appropriation, 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
ŘŞȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-4. Estimated Additional State Grants for Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, Part B, Grants to States under H.R. 1 and S. 336 at an Appropriation
Level of $13 Billion
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation S. 336 Total
FY2009 and Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
Alabama 98,194,000
112,536,000
210,730,000
185,858,000
Alaska 19,245,000
23,246,000
42,491,000
34,377,000
Arizona 94,766,000
114,895,000
209,661,000
205,326,000
Arkansas 58,445,000
67,182,000
125,627,000
128,732,000
California 662,464,000
760,020,000
1,422,484,000
1,380,882,000
Colorado 78,972,000
95,746,000
174,718,000
171,106,000
Connecticut 68,004,000
78,295,000
146,299,000
152,594,000
Delaware 17,363,000
21,051,000
38,414,000
37,620,000
District of Columbia
8,730,000
10,585,000
19,315,000
18,916,000
Florida 335,542,000
393,810,000
729,352,000
718,192,000
Georgia 166,597,000
201,983,000
368,580,000
360,961,000
Hawaii 20,419,000
23,509,000
43,928,000
44,132,000
Idaho 28,273,000
34,278,000
62,551,000
60,875,000
Illinois 266,431,000
306,009,000
572,440,000
581,221,000
Indiana 135,706,000
156,076,000
291,782,000
291,110,000
Iowa 62,442,000
71,891,000
134,333,000
140,113,000
Kansas 57,703,000
66,131,000
123,834,000
122,643,000
Kentucky 85,232,000
97,680,000
182,912,000
181,152,000
Louisiana 101,287,000
116,169,000
217,456,000
211,840,000
Maine 27,987,000
32,222,000
60,209,000
62,800,000
Maryland 107,215,000
122,959,000
230,174,000
229,791,000
Massachusetts 145,190,000
167,161,000
312,351,000
325,789,000
Michigan 216,300,000
247,891,000
464,191,000
459,725,000
Minnesota 102,500,000
117,470,000
219,970,000
217,854,000
Mississippi 63,063,000
76,229,000
139,292,000
135,381,000
Missouri 122,183,000
140,073,000
262,256,000
260,700,000
Montana 19,705,000
23,333,000
43,038,000
39,671,000
Nebraska 38,191,000
43,971,000
82,162,000
85,697,000
Nevada 35,639,000
43,208,000
78,847,000
77,217,000
ȱȱȱ
Řşȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation S. 336 Total
FY2009 and Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
New
Hampshire 24,273,000 27,946,000 52,219,000 54,465,000
New Jersey
184,874,000
212,851,000
397,725,000
414,837,000
New Mexico
46,615,000
53,669,000
100,284,000
104,598,000
New York
388,267,000
447,023,000
835,290,000
871,228,000
North Carolina
166,943,000
202,403,000
369,346,000
361,711,000
North Dakota
14,099,000
17,093,000
31,192,000
29,009,000
Ohio 236,347,000
274,081,000
510,428,000
502,332,000
Oklahoma 79,096,000
92,780,000
171,876,000
168,980,000
Oregon 69,640,000
79,811,000
149,451,000
148,013,000
Pennsylvania 230,646,000
264,333,000
494,979,000
490,217,000
Puerto Rico
57,928,000
70,233,000
128,161,000
125,512,000
Rhode Island
22,367,000
25,751,000
48,118,000
50,188,000
South Carolina
92,643,000
108,146,000
200,789,000
199,084,000
South Dakota
16,795,000
20,362,000
37,157,000
36,389,000
Tennessee 121,475,000
147,277,000
268,752,000
252,807,000
Texas 502,108,000
608,757,000
1,110,865,000
1,059,518,000
Utah 56,039,000
67,942,000
123,981,000
121,419,000
Vermont 13,594,000
16,481,000
30,075,000
27,152,000
Virginia 152,088,000
174,301,000
326,389,000
323,250,000
Washington 119,518,000
137,206,000
256,724,000
254,023,000
West Virginia
38,843,000
44,722,000
83,565,000
87,160,000
Wisconsin 107,754,000
123,932,000
231,686,000
238,924,000
Wyoming 14,261,000
17,290,000
31,551,000
26,059,000
Total
6,000,000,000 7,000,000,000 13,000,000,000 12,869,150,000a
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 30, 2009.
Notes: The 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). The FY2009 appropriation was also used in determining FY2010 grants under H.R. 1.
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.
a. Grants to states are subject to maximum allocation limits specified under IDEA at sec. 611(a)(2)(B) in
accordance with S. 336, notwithstanding maximum allocation limits specified under IDEA at sec.
611(d)(3)(B)(iii). Estimates presented here have been calculated using the most currently available data.
ȱȱȱ
řŖȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-5. Estimated Additional State Grants for Education of Homeless Children
and Youth (McKinney-Vento Act) under H.R. 1 at an Appropriation Level of $66
Million and under S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of $70 Million
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation S. 336 Total
FY2009 and Appropriation
FY2009 ($) FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
Alabama 508,000
508,000
1,016,000
1,102,000
Alaska 150,000
150,000
300,000
195,000
Arizona 608,000
608,000
1,216,000
1,317,000
Arkansas 344,000
344,000
688,000
746,000
California 3,877,000
3,877,000
7,754,000
8,403,000
Colorado 320,000
320,000
640,000
692,000
Connecticut 252,000
252,000
504,000
546,000
Delaware 150,000
150,000
300,000
193,000
District of Columbia
150,000
150,000
300,000
241,000
Florida 1,573,000
1,573,000
3,146,000
3,410,000
Georgia 1,047,000
1,047,000
2,094,000
2,269,000
Hawaii 150,000
150,000
300,000
230,000
Idaho 150,000
150,000
300,000
240,000
Illinois 1,291,000
1,291,000
2,582,000
2,797,000
Indiana 569,000
569,000
1,138,000
1,233,000
Iowa 169,000
169,000
338,000
366,000
Kansas 226,000
226,000
452,000
489,000
Kentucky 493,000
493,000
986,000
1,069,000
Louisiana 699,000
699,000
1,398,000
1,515,000
Maine 150,000
150,000
300,000
265,000
Maryland 444,000
444,000
888,000
961,000
Massachusetts 540,000
540,000
1,080,000
1,171,000
Michigan 1,241,000
1,241,000
2,482,000
2,690,000
Minnesota 297,000
297,000
594,000
643,000
Mississippi 436,000
436,000
872,000
945,000
Missouri 531,000
531,000
1,062,000
1,151,000
Montana 150,000
150,000
300,000
219,000
Nebraska 150,000
150,000
300,000
311,000
Nevada 194,000
194,000
388,000
420,000
New Hampshire
150,000
150,000
300,000
192,000
ȱȱȱ
řŗȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated Additional State Grants
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation S. 336 Total
FY2009 and Appropriation
FY2009 ($) FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
New Jersey
662,000
662,000
1,324,000
1,434,000
New Mexico
266,000
266,000
532,000
577,000
New York
2,764,000
2,764,000
5,528,000
5,990,000
North Carolina
858,000
858,000
1,716,000
1,859,000
North Dakota
150,000
150,000
300,000
173,000
Ohio 1,201,000
1,201,000
2,402,000
2,603,000
Oklahoma 352,000
352,000
704,000
764,000
Oregon 332,000
332,000
664,000
720,000
Pennsylvania 1,327,000
1,327,000
2,654,000
2,875,000
Puerto Rico
1,226,000
1,226,000
2,452,000
2,658,000
Rhode Island
150,000
150,000
300,000
259,000
South Carolina
489,000
489,000
978,000
1,060,000
South Dakota
150,000
150,000
300,000
209,000
Tennessee 574,000
574,000
1,148,000
1,244,000
Texas 3,020,000
3,020,000
6,040,000
6,545,000
Utah 150,000
150,000
300,000
303,000
Vermont 150,000
150,000
300,000
173,000
Virginia 539,000
539,000
1,078,000
1,169,000
Washington 447,000
447,000
894,000
969,000
West Virginia
234,000
234,000
468,000
508,000
Wisconsin 437,000
437,000
874,000
947,000
Wyoming 150,000
150,000
300,000
173,000
Subtotal states, DC, and
Puerto Rico
32,637,000 32,637,000 65,274,000 69,230,000
Outlying areas and BIA
363,000
363,000
726,000
770,000
Total 33,000,000
33,000,000
66,000,000
70,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 30, 2009.
Notes: Estimates are based on FY2008 grants under ESEA Title I, Part A, with no hold harmless applied. Under
both H.R. 1 and S. 336, 1.1% was set-aside for the outlying areas and BIA. For H.R. 1, estimates are based on
FY2008 grants under ESEA Title I-A with no hold harmless applied and a state minimum of $150,000. S. 336
provides that funds be allocated among the states on the basis of state-reported estimates of homeless students
for the 2007-2008 school year. Data for that year are not yet available, so data for the 2006-2007 school year,
the most recent year for which data are available, were used to calculated estimated grants.
ȱȱȱ
řŘȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
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 under H.R. 1 at an Appropriation Level of $14 Billion and
under S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of $16 Billion
State
Estimated State Grant for Construction FY2009 ($)
H.R. 1 Total Appropriation
S. 336 Total Appropriation
FY2009($)
FY2009($)
Alabama 216,323,000 235,436,000
Alaska 39,236,000
77,575,000
Arizona 277,258,000 301,756,000
Arkansas 146,501,000 159,446,000
California 1,693,624,000 1,843,270,000
Colorado 136,267,000 148,308,000
Connecticut 117,211,000 127,568,000
Delaware 39,056,000 77,575,000
District of Columbia
48,127,000
77,575,000
Florida 654,876,000
712,739,000
Georgia 454,126,000 494,252,000
Hawaii 45,117,000
77,575,000
Idaho 46,936,000
77,575,000
Illinois 603,411,000
656,727,000
Indiana 248,023,000
269,938,000
Iowa 72,313,000
78,703,000
Kansas 94,595,000
102,953,000
Kentucky 209,489,000 227,999,000
Louisiana 297,724,000 324,031,000
Maine 52,432,000
77,575,000
Maryland 194,786,000 211,997,000
Massachusetts 236,189,000
257,058,000
Michigan 526,590,000 573,118,000
Minnesota 125,666,000 136,770,000
Mississippi 189,823,000 206,595,000
Missouri 227,618,000 247,730,000
Montana 44,064,000 77,575,000
Nebraska 60,839,000 77,575,000
Nevada 81,163,000 88,334,000
New Hampshire
38,427,000
77,575,000
New Jersey
289,948,000
315,567,000
New Mexico
114,687,000
124,821,000
ȱȱȱ
řŚȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated State Grant for Construction FY2009 ($)
H.R. 1 Total Appropriation
S. 336 Total Appropriation
FY2009($)
FY2009($)
New York
1,233,988,000
1,343,020,000
North Carolina
363,695,000
395,830,000
North Dakota
33,957,000
77,575,000
Ohio 515,958,000
561,547,000
Oklahoma 149,861,000 163,103,000
Oregon 141,719,000 154,241,000
Pennsylvania 564,453,000 614,327,000
Puerto Rico
519,511,000
565,414,000
Rhode Island
53,911,000
77,575,000
South Carolina
208,717,000
227,159,000
South Dakota
40,676,000
77,575,000
Tennessee 242,353,000 263,767,000
Texas 1,315,800,000
1,432,061,000
Utah 61,076,000
77,575,000
Vermont 33,391,000 77,575,000
Virginia 228,537,000
248,730,000
Washington 191,432,000 208,347,000
West Virginia
100,962,000
109,883,000
Wisconsin 201,065,000 218,830,000
Wyoming 30,490,000 77,575,000
Subtotal for states, DC,
and Puerto Rico
13,854,000,000 15,515,000,000
Outlying areas and BIA
140,000,000
160,000,000
Impact Aid Section 8007
0
320,000,000
Oversight by the
Secretary
6,000,000 5,000,000
Total 14,000,000,000
16,000,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 30, 2009.
Notes: Estimated state grants are based on total FY2008 Title I-A grants to LEAs with hold harmless applied.
Under H.R. 1, a set-aside of 1% was reserved for the outlying areas and BIA and $6 million was reserved for
oversight by the Secretary. Under S. 336, a set-aside of 1% was reserved for the outlying areas and BIA and a
set-aside of 2% was reserved for Impact Aid Section 8007 grants. In addition, $5 million was reserved for
oversight by the Secretary of Education. States received a minimum grant of 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
řśȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
Table A-7. Estimated State Grants for Higher Education Modernization, Renovation,
and Repair under H.R. 1 at an Appropriation Level of $6 Billion and under S. 366 at
an Appropriation Level of $3.5 Billion
State
Estimated State Grant for Construction FY2009 ($)
H.R. 1 Total Appropriation
S. 336 Total Appropriation
FY2009($)
FY2009($)
Alabama 138,871,000
81,020,000
Alaska 9,121,000
5,322,000
Arizona 113,201,000
66,043,000
Arkansas 54,124,000
31,577,000
California 736,418,000
429,639,000
Colorado 90,650,000
52,887,000
Connecticut 58,380,000
34,060,000
Delaware 18,144,000
10,585,000
District of Columbia
21,998,000
12,834,000
Florida 306,202,000
178,643,000
Georgia 160,015,000
93,356,000
Hawaii 20,934,000
12,213,000
Idaho 28,839,000
16,825,000
Illinois 256,048,000
149,383,000
Indiana 132,109,000
77,075,000
Iowa 79,021,000
46,102,000
Kansas 67,616,000
39,448,000
Kentucky 77,102,000
44,982,000
Louisiana 85,227,000
49,723,000
Maine 22,577,000
13,172,000
Maryland 98,966,000
57,739,000
Massachusetts 145,576,000 84,931,000
Michigan 211,454,000
123,366,000
Minnesota 115,202,000
67,211,000
Mississippi 58,842,000
34,329,000
Missouri 116,561,000
68,003,000
Montana 19,204,000
11,204,000
Nebraska 43,657,000
25,470,000
Nevada 32,168,000
18,767,000
New Hampshire
24,021,000
14,014,000
New Jersey
129,733,000
75,688,000
New Mexico
39,619,000
23,114,000
ȱȱȱ
řŜȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated State Grant for Construction FY2009 ($)
H.R. 1 Total Appropriation
S. 336 Total Appropriation
FY2009($)
FY2009($)
New York
398,806,000
232,670,000
North Carolina
187,457,000
109,365,000
North Dakota
18,872,000
11,011,000
Ohio 224,042,000
130,710,000
Oklahoma 77,780,000
45,378,000
Oregon 68,215,000
39,798,000
Pennsylvania 257,395,000
150,169,000
Puerto Rico
71,233,000
41,558,000
Rhode Island
31,375,000
18,305,000
South Carolina
82,697,000
48,247,000
South Dakota
17,463,000
10,188,000
Tennessee 105,243,000
61,400,000
Texas 408,415,000
238,276,000
Utah 73,257,000
42,739,000
Vermont 15,211,000
8,874,000
Virginia 146,938,000
85,726,000
Washington 124,909,000 72,874,000
West Virginia
40,272,000
23,496,000
Wisconsin 116,174,000
67,778,000
Wyoming 11,276,000
6,579,000
American Samoa
616,000
359,000
Fed. State Micronesia
1,053,000
614,000
Guam 1,957,000
1,142,000
Marshall Islands
328,000
191,000
Northern Mariana Islands
319,000
186,000
Palau 335,000
195,000
Virgin Islands
762,000
444,000
Administration 6,000,000 3,000,000
TOTAL 6,000,000,000
3,500,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 30, 2009.
Notes: Estimated grants allocated in proportion to the number of FTE undergraduate students enrolled in public
and private not-for-profit institutions in 2006-2007, 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
under H.R. 1 and S. 336 at an Appropriation Level of $79 Billion
State
Estimated State Grants for Stabilization
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation S. 336 Total
FY2009 and Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
Alabama 480,399,000
480,399,000
960,798,000
960,798,000
Alaska 76,079,000
76,079,000
152,158,000
152,158,000
Arizona 650,565,000
650,565,000
1,301,130,000
1,301,130,000
Arkansas 292,590,000
292,590,000
585,180,000
585,180,000
California 3,927,400,000
3,927,400,000
7,854,800,000
7,854,800,000
Colorado 495,058,000
495,058,000
990,116,000
990,116,000
Connecticut 359,097,000
359,097,000
718,194,000
718,194,000
Delaware 88,067,000
88,067,000
176,134,000
176,134,000
District of Columbia
59,065,000
59,065,000
118,130,000
118,130,000
Florida 1,773,400,000
1,773,400,000
3,546,800,000
3,546,800,000
Georgia 999,831,000
999,831,000
1,999,662,000
1,999,662,000
Hawaii 128,065,000
128,065,000
256,130,000
256,130,000
Idaho 159,665,000
159,665,000
319,330,000
319,330,000
Illinois 1,356,775,000
1,356,775,000
2,713,550,000
2,713,550,000
Indiana 664,619,000
664,619,000
1,329,238,000
1,329,238,000
Iowa 312,797,000
312,797,000
625,594,000
625,594,000
Kansas 295,624,000
295,624,000
591,248,000
591,248,000
Kentucky 430,924,000
430,924,000
861,848,000
861,848,000
Louisiana 472,468,000
472,468,000
944,936,000
944,936,000
Maine 129,432,000
129,432,000
258,864,000
258,864,000
Maryland 582,052,000
582,052,000
1,164,104,000
1,164,104,000
Massachusetts 657,444,000
657,444,000
1,314,888,000
1,314,888,000
Michigan 1,065,263,000
1,065,263,000
2,130,526,000
2,130,526,000
Minnesota 540,398,000
540,398,000
1,080,796,000
1,080,796,000
Mississippi 318,531,000
318,531,000
637,062,000
637,062,000
Missouri 608,519,000
608,519,000
1,217,038,000
1,217,038,000
Montana 98,266,000
98,266,000
196,532,000
196,532,000
Nebraska 188,884,000
188,884,000
377,768,000
377,768,000
Nevada 254,880,000
254,880,000
509,760,000
509,760,000
New Hampshire
133,583,000
133,583,000
267,166,000
267,166,000
ȱȱȱ
řŞȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
State
Estimated State Grants for Stabilization
H.R. 1
Total
Appropriation S. 336 Total
FY2009 and Appropriation
FY2009 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2010 ($)
FY2009 ($)
New Jersey
881,629,000
881,629,000
1,763,258,000
1,763,258,000
New Mexico
209,642,000
209,642,000
419,284,000
419,284,000
New York
1,995,929,000
1,995,929,000
3,991,858,000
3,991,858,000
North Carolina
919,198,000
919,198,000
1,838,396,000
1,838,396,000
North Dakota
69,461,000
69,461,000
138,922,000
138,922,000
Ohio 1,192,513,000
1,192,513,000
2,385,026,000
2,385,026,000
Oklahoma 380,870,000
380,870,000
761,740,000
761,740,000
Oregon 373,577,000
373,577,000
747,154,000
747,154,000
Pennsylvania 1,264,043,000
1,264,043,000
2,528,086,000
2,528,086,000
Puerto Rico
431,393,000
431,393,000
862,786,000
862,786,000
Rhode Island
110,301,000
110,301,000
220,602,000
220,602,000
South Carolina
452,547,000
452,547,000
905,094,000
905,094,000
South Dakota
83,998,000
83,998,000
167,996,000
167,996,000
Tennessee 620,620,000
620,620,000
1,241,240,000
1,241,240,000
Texas 2,569,771,000
2,569,771,000
5,139,542,000
5,139,542,000
Utah 308,721,000
308,721,000
617,442,000
617,442,000
Vermont 63,195,000
63,195,000
126,390,000
126,390,000
Virginia 792,261,000
792,261,000
1,584,522,000
1,584,522,000
Washington 657,893,000
657,893,000
1,315,786,000
1,315,786,000
West Virginia
177,383,000
177,383,000
354,766,000
354,766,000
Wisconsin 581,098,000
581,098,000
1,162,196,000
1,162,196,000
Wyoming 54,211,000
54,211,000
108,422,000
108,422,000
Subtotal to states, DC, and Puerto
Rico
31,790,000,000 31,790,000,000 63,580,000,000 63,580,000,000
Outlying areas
197,500,000
197,500,000
395,000,000
395,000,000
Administration and oversight
12,500,000
12,500,000
25,000,000
25,000,000
Secretary’s reservation for
additional programs
7,500,000,000 7,500,000,000 15,000,000,000 15,000,000,000
Total
39,500,000,000 39,500,000,000 79,000,000,000 79,000,000,000
Source: Table prepared by CRS, January 30, 2009, based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community
Survey (ACS) data.
Notes: For each fiscal year, 0.5% was reserved for the outlying areas. Details may not add to totals due to
rounding.
ȱȱȱ
řşȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱ
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.
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
ŚŖȱ