HR-10421-119
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, Science, Space, and Technology, Armed Services, and Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
What it does
This omnibus bill would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and related laws. It would authorize higher spending on special education (raising the IDEA authorization in steps from 15 percent of a statutory formula amount in fiscal year 2027 to 40 percent from fiscal year 2033 on), Title IV programs, career and technical education, and a $1 billion-per-year project-based learning grant program. Its table of contents also lists provisions that would ban corporal punishment and restraint and seclusion, restrict federal funds going to private schools, repeal the D.C. school voucher program, create universal preschool and free school meals, fund teacher salary grants, and change testing and accountability rules. Authorizations only set spending ceilings; actual money requires separate appropriations. Only part of the bill text was available, so the later sections are described from the table of contents.
Who benefits
Public school students, including those with disabilities, English learners, and low-income students, who could get more funded services, free meals, and preschool. Teachers, paraprofessionals, and school staff who could gain from salary grants, professional development, and mental health programs. State and local school districts that could get more federal aid toward special education costs. Students in schools that use corporal punishment or restraint and seclusion, who would gain new protections. Families of young children who could gain access to free preschool.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, since the authorizations would add substantial spending if appropriated. Private and religious schools and school-choice programs, which could lose access to federal funds and, in D.C., a voucher program. Charter schools that could face new definitions and transparency conditions. States and districts that would take on new federal conditions, reporting duties, and compliance costs, including for corporal punishment and restraint rules. Families using D.C. vouchers, and schools or states that rely on standardized-test-based accountability, which could face changed requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the bill moves the federal government toward its original 40 percent IDEA funding commitment. They contend that universal meals and preschool, teacher pay grants, and bans on corporal punishment and restraint address documented gaps in school funding and student safety. They argue that expanded arts, history, and mental health programs support a well-rounded education that narrower testing-focused policies have neglected.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the bill authorizes very large new spending across dozens of programs without offsets, which would add to the federal deficit. They contend it expands federal conditions on a field traditionally run by states and localities, and limits parental school choice by restricting funds to private schools and repealing the D.C. voucher program. They argue that reduced reliance on standardized tests may weaken measures of school performance.
Constitutional context
Congress has no enumerated education power and acts through the Spending Clause, so the conditions attached to funds must satisfy South Dakota v. Dole (1987) and avoid coercing states, as in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). Limits on funds reaching private or religious schools raise Free Exercise questions under Espinoza v. Montana (2020) and Carson v. Makin (2022), and the D.C. voucher repeal falls under Congress's Article I, Section 8 authority over the District.
Checks and balances
Congress and the Department of Education gain authority through new grants, conditions, and rulemaking, while the Attorney General and Office for Civil Rights gain enforcement roles; checks include the separate appropriations process, state and court challenges to funding conditions, and required reports to Congress.
Historical precedent
The Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) and No Child Left Behind (2001) similarly amended the ESEA to set federal conditions and funding for K-12 schools, and IDEA's 1975 enactment included a 40 percent funding target that has never been fully funded.