HR-2021-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Frederica Wilson (D-FL)
What it does
The bill would direct the Secretary of Education to award 4-year grants to state education agencies that apply and give assurances that full-time teachers at public elementary and secondary schools will earn at least $60,000 a year (adjusted for inflation, starting in school year 2026-2027), with part-time teachers paid a proportionate amount. States would have to use at least 85 percent of grant funds for subgrants to local school districts, giving priority to districts with many Title I schools or rural locale codes, and would have to submit a plan to sustain the minimum afterward. A separate grant program would help states that already meet the $60,000 floor give annual cost-of-living raises, the Secretary may reserve up to 4 percent of funds for a teaching-profession awareness campaign, and the bill authorizes "such sums as may be necessary" for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. Grant funds could not replace existing state or local teacher pay funds, and collective bargaining rights are preserved.
Who benefits
Full-time and part-time public school teachers currently paid below $60,000, who would see higher pay if their state participates. School districts with many Title I schools and rural districts, which get funding priority. Students in schools with high turnover or vacancies, if higher pay improves recruitment and retention. Teachers in states already at $60,000 whose pay may receive inflation adjustments through the second grant program.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, who would fund an open-ended authorization with no stated dollar cap. States that join would have to maintain the salary floor after the 4-year grants end and may need to enact legislation setting minimum salaries, which could strain state and local budgets. Teachers in private and charter-excluded settings, and non-teaching school staff such as aides and counselors, would not be covered by the salary floor. States that decline to participate or already pay above the floor but cannot show inflation inability may receive less support.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that teacher pay lags comparable college-educated workers, citing a teacher wage penalty of 23.5 percent in 2021, and that low pay worsens shortages and student learning. They contend a federal incentive with a $60,000 floor, inflation indexing, and priority for high-poverty and rural districts would make pay more competitive while leaving states in charge of how to implement it. They add that the supplement-not-supplant rule keeps states from cutting their own spending.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that setting teacher pay is a state and local responsibility and that a uniform $60,000 floor ignores large differences in cost of living across regions. They contend the open-ended authorization of "such sums as may be necessary" lacks a cost limit, and that states could be left funding the inflation-indexed salary floor after the 4-year grants end. They also argue that a flat minimum does not link pay to performance or to shortages in particular subjects.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), and conditions such as the salary-floor assurance must satisfy the South Dakota v. Dole (1987) test, including that they not be coercive. Because the grants are voluntary and states may decline, a coercion claim of the kind raised in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) appears less likely, though the Tenth Amendment reserves education to the states and the bill's requirement that states may need to enact salary legislation is the main point of tension.
Checks and balances
The bill gives the Education Department (executive branch) discretion over applications, compliance demonstrations, and a campaign reserve, while Congress retains control through appropriations and states keep the choice whether to participate; courts could review any funding-condition disputes.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used conditional federal grants to influence state education practices, such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Race to the Top incentives, but no enacted federal program has set a nationwide minimum teacher salary.