HR-7855-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to require that Title I schoolwide programs include sequential, standards-based arts education (covering dance, media arts, theater, and visual arts) and music education, taught by state-certified educators. It would also explicitly allow Title I targeted assistance schools to use federal funds for arts and music programs, including support for certified educators, professional development, instruments, sheet music, supplies, and related instructional expenses.
Who benefits
Students in Title I schools — which serve roughly 26 million children in low-income communities — who currently lack access to arts and music programs. Certified arts and music educators who would see increased demand for their positions. Community arts providers who could be contracted to deliver instruction. Instrument manufacturers, music technology vendors, and arts supply companies that would benefit from new allowable spending categories. Schools of education that train arts and music teachers.
Who is hurt
School administrators and districts that would face new programmatic requirements within existing Title I budgets, potentially diverting funds from other academic interventions such as reading or math support. Teachers in other subject areas who may compete for limited Title I resources. Taxpayers in Title I districts who may see local budget pressure if federal funds are insufficient to cover new requirements. Schools in rural or low-income areas that may struggle to recruit and retain state-certified arts and music educators.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that arts and music education is disproportionately absent in high-poverty schools — research from the National Endowment for the Arts shows students in low-income schools are significantly less likely to receive arts instruction than their higher-income peers. They contend that integrating arts and music into Title I schoolwide plans would close an equity gap, and that studies link arts education to improved attendance, engagement, and academic outcomes in core subjects.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that adding mandated arts and music requirements to Title I programs could crowd out funding for core academic interventions — reading, math, and literacy support — that Title I was specifically designed to address for disadvantaged students. They contend that districts already face difficulty meeting existing Title I requirements, and that imposing new programmatic obligations without dedicated additional funding may force schools to make difficult tradeoffs that ultimately harm the students the program is meant to serve.
Constitutional context
The bill operates under Congress's Spending Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), attaching new programmatic conditions to existing Title I federal education funding. Under South Dakota v. Dole (1987), such conditions are permissible if they are unambiguous, related to the federal interest, and do not cross the line from incentive to coercion. Because Title I funding is already accepted by virtually all states, adding new conditions to an existing program raises a potential — though not clearly resolved — question about whether states have meaningful choice to refuse.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by expanding the conditions attached to Title I federal education funding; the Department of Education would oversee compliance, while states retain discretion in defining educator certification standards and academic benchmarks for arts and music.
Historical precedent
The Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) already identifies arts as part of a "well-rounded education" under Title IV, but does not mandate arts or music instruction in Title I schoolwide plans; this bill would be the first to embed such a requirement directly into Title I program plans.