education programs funded by the government

• THE FOUNDATION
• OUR FOUNDER
• PGPF Facebook
• PGPF Twitter
• PGPF YouTube
• PGPF Linkedin

The Fiscal Challenge

Fiscal & economic impact, finding solutions, comprehensive plans, understanding the budget.

• Budget Process

National Security

Budget process reforms, what we're doing, research and analysis.

• Chart Archive

Education & Awareness

• Fiscal Confidence Index
• Current Debt and Deficit
• The Fiscal Summit
• Economic Forum

What You Can Do

I want to lead, i want to learn, register for the newsletter, resource library, budget, deficits, and debt, demographics, defense and national security, other programs, retirement security, taxes and revenues, infographics, you are here, how is k-12 education funded.

Public schools for students in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) are financed through a combination of local, state, and federal dollars in proportions that vary across and within states. In the 2021 fiscal year, the most recent data available, spending for public K-12 education totaled $795 billion from all sources, reflecting an increase for the ninth consecutive year.

State and local governments provide the vast majority of funding for K-12 education — 89 percent of all school funding. State governments rely on formulas that distribute education funds among school districts. Those school districts use state dollars and additional revenue raised from federal and local sources to fund individual schools. Although both states and localities apply approaches intended to allocate funds fairly, disparities nevertheless occur . Those disparities primarily stem from the sources of revenues and the varying costs of providing education in each school district.

Meanwhile, the federal government provides a small share of education funding through specific grant programs. They are designed to supplement funding for schools with at-risk youth, including students with disabilities or from low-income households. During recent economic downturns, federal spending has also helped supplement diminished school funding from state and local sources.

Federal Funding Programs for K-12

The federal government provides support for K-12 education through specific grant programs administered by the states to school districts. Federal dollars supplement state resources by narrowing funding gaps for at-risk students through programs such as Title I grants under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and Part B grants under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Federal funds made up just $85 billion or 11 percent of total education funding during the 2021 fiscal year. That amount increased from 2020 levels ($58 billion) partially due to legislation enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which provided emergency relief funding to address the impact that COVID-19 had on elementary and secondary schools.

Title I ESEA

Title I grants provide funds to school districts serving large shares of low-income students. It is the largest grant program of ESEA, totaling $14 billion during the 2021 fiscal year. Those funds are allocated through four formulas that are based on the number of eligible students and several provisions, including a state's target level of funding per student. Eligible students include children ages 5 to 17 in:

• low-income families;
• institutions for neglected or delinquent children or in foster homes; and
• families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families payments.

Part B IDEA and Other Programs

During the 2021 fiscal year, the federal government provided $11 billion in IDEA grants to states. Those funds are awarded through a formula based on a state's total population with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21 , the percentage of those individuals living in poverty, and the state's IDEA appropriations in 1999.

The federal government also allocated $17 billion for child nutrition , which was used to reimburse schools that provided free or reduced-price lunches to eligible students. About $5 billion of federal funds went directly to school districts for various programs including Impact Aid. In addition, the federal government provided $0.6 billion for vocational programs and $37 billion on the aforementioned programs for which reporting units could not provide distinct amounts.

State Funding Formulas for K-12 Education

States use formulas that aim, at least in part, to equitably distribute education funding across school districts. Although their ability to do so is limited by the resources available, those formulas account for locally raised revenues and the needs of students in each district. As a result, the state's share of education funding tends to be higher in school districts with a low capacity to raise revenues. State funding is also higher in school districts with a large concentration of students who are English-language learners, have low family incomes, or have other special needs.

Nearly all states (46 out of 50) primarily allocate education funds through foundation program formulas. Such programs establish a minimum level (or "foundation") of funding per student and ensure that each school district receives enough school funding to meet that foundation. The funding provided through foundation programs may also take into account different student characteristics, such as family income and disability status, to ensure at-risk students receive sufficient resources.

Local Funding Methods for K-12

In addition to the revenues allocated by the federal and state government, school districts raise funding at the local level, in general by levying local property taxes. Once revenues are raised and allocated from federal, state, and local sources, school districts are tasked with distributing that funding to each school in the district. School districts have typically allocated teachers, administrators, and equipment to each school while calculating funding per student retroactively based on the resources assigned.

In recent years, a number of school districts have moved away from that process and have begun to develop budgets for individual schools that apply the concept of weighted student funding formulas to assign resources based on student need. Proponents of student-based allocation argue that it would improve transparency by reflecting actual expenditures per school and promote equity by linking resources to specific needs. However, many states have layers of rules that limit the application of this new approach. Moreover, as a relatively new practice among school districts, comprehensive research on its effects is not yet available .

Why Does Education Funding Differ Across School Districts?

Nearly 40 percent of funding for public education stems from local taxes. As a result, funding can vary widely among school districts based on the wealth of families living in them. School districts with high-value property are often able to fund their schools above the minimum level established by the state, contributing to wider disparities. Those disparities become more apparent during economic downturns because wealthier school districts benefit from relatively stable revenues from property taxes. In contrast, funding for school districts more reliant on the state, and specifically a state income tax, tends to vary with economic performance. Ultimately, the variation in school finance systems produces disparate results, with some states spending far more on each student than others.

Differences in wealth among districts are partially attributable to remnants of racial covenants — legal contracts embedded in property deeds to prevent nonwhite people from moving in. Although those covenants have not been enforceable for decades, their impacts persist today. For example, a 2019 analysis by EdBuild found that predominantly nonwhite districts received $23 billion less than predominantly white districts from state and local governments despite serving the same number of students.

Despite school districts allocating resources based on standardized factors like student-teacher ratios that, in theory, should fairly distribute funding per student between schools, there can be significant disparities in the amounts actually spent on schools within a district. That can partially stem from the school district’s practice of distributing resources, not dollars, which masks higher spending for some schools. For example, a school assigned educators with more experience would receive higher funding for teacher compensation .

While state financing programs aim to fairly distribute funding and resources across all school districts, no state is capable of fully equalizing funding disparities. Those disparities are driven by differences among districts in the cost of education as well as the ability and willingness of districts to spend money on education. Further, while financing from the federal government has resulted in increased funding for disadvantaged students, the method of financing is also limited.

How Has Education Funding Changed over Time?

Over the past century, the local share of education funding has declined, with state funding largely making up the difference. The federal share of education funding has been relatively constant over the last 40 years after generally rising from 1920 to 1980.

State revenue streams are an important tool in limiting funding disparities, but can be particularly volatile during recessions , leading to reductions in funding for programs like education. In recent economic downturns, for example during the Great Recession, federal support has increased to offset declines in state resources. However, while federal funding was used to mitigate state-level declines during the 2007–2009 recession, average education funding declined when the economy recovered and federal funding tapered off. Many states did not compensate for the loss of federal funding ; in 2019, 17 states spent less than they did in 2008 (in inflation-adjusted terms), according to the Pew Charitable Trusts.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government sent an additional $190 billion to states and school districts in emergency funding for K-12 education . That investment is nearly triple the amount the federal government spent on K-12 education in the previous school year and increased the share of education revenue received from federal sources. That spending was intended to assist schools in responding to the pandemic while maintaining academic progress. Federal spending on K-12 education is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels in subsequent years.

K-12 education funding is an important investment in our future . Understanding the complicated joint commitment and relationships among local, state, and federal governments to fund education is a key part of discerning its place in the budget among other priorities and against the backdrop of an unsustainable federal fiscal outlook .

Expert Views: Fiscal Commission

National debt clock.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

FACT SHEET: How the Biden- ⁠ Harris Administration Is Advancing Educational   Equity

As Schools Reopen, Vital PK-12 Investments Will Address Disparities, Build Back Our Schools on a Stronger and More Equitable Foundation, and Enable America to Compete Globally

The last year and a half have been extraordinarily challenging for America’s students. As we prepare for the 2021-2022 school year, the Biden-Harris Administration is committed to helping every school safely open for full-time, in-person instruction; accelerate academic achievement; and build school communities where all students feel they belong.    At the same time, President Biden understands that addressing the immediate impact of the pandemic is not enough. For too many Americans—including students of color, children with disabilities, English learners, LGBTQ+ students, students from low-income families, and other underserved students—the promise of a high-quality education has gone unfulfilled for generations. Studies show the remarkable benefits of preschool programs , but such programs are too often out of reach for children of color and low-income children. Dramatically unequal funding between school districts means some children learn in gleaming new classrooms, while students just down the road navigate unsafe and rundown facilities . Amid a nationwide teacher shortage , high-poverty school districts struggle to attract certified staff and experienced educators. And students of color and children with disabilities face disproportionately high rates  of school discipline that removes them from the classroom, with lasting consequences. With 53 percent of our public school students now students of color, addressing these disparities is critical for not only all our children, but for our nation’s collective health, happiness, and economic security. Consistent with the President’s Executive Order , the Administration is committed to advancing educational equity for every child—so that schools and students not only recover from the pandemic, but Build Back Better. As First Lady Dr. Biden says, “Any country that out-educates us is going to outcompete us.” We will meet the challenges of the coming decades only by harnessing the full potential of every young person. Taken together, the unprecedented investments already made in the American Rescue Plan—along with those proposed in the Build Back Better Agenda—will devote historic and vitally-needed resources that unlock opportunity for millions of Americans. These investments in evidence-based approaches will shore up schools struggling with the aftermath of COVID-19, tackle inter-generational educational disparities, address the holistic needs of children, and incentivize states to help our schools rebuild on a stronger and more equitable foundation. To support the equitable education of every child at every step, the Administration will:

• Safely reopen schools and support students, particularly those disproportionately impacted by the pandemic;
• Invest in high-quality early childhood education, including providing universal pre-school for all three and four-year-olds and access to affordable child care;
• Address the national teacher shortage by improving teacher preparation, strengthening pipelines for underrepresented teachers, and supporting current teachers;
• Upgrade and build new public schools and child care centers;
• Expand college and career pathways for middle and high school students;
• Make a historic $20 billion investment in high-poverty Title I schools;
• Fund additional transformational investments to support the needs of the whole child, including community schools that provide wraparound services like afterschool programs, and hiring more counselors, social workers and school psychologists.

ADVANCING EDUCATIONAL EQUITY IN THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN The President made clear on Day One of this Administration that safely reopening schools was a national priority, signing an Executive Order that launched a comprehensive effort across the White House, Department of Education, and Department of Health and Human Services to safely reopen schools. The Department of Education has worked to support states and school districts in implementing CDC guidance for safe operations, and engaged education leaders across the country to collect and share best practices. The Administration has prioritized K-12 educator, staff, and child care vaccinations, and increased access to and awareness of vaccines among adolescents and their parents. States, school districts, and schools are supported in this work by the American Rescue Plan’s historic and needed investment in our schools. This included $130 billion to support the safe reopening of schools and address the academic, social, emotional, and mental health needs of students—including $122 billion through the American Rescue Plan’s Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER). This funding is being used to help schools safely operate, implement high-quality summer learning and enrichment programs, hire nurses and counselors, support the vaccination of students and staff, and invest in other measures to take care of students. Thanks to these efforts—combined with the Administration’s aggressive vaccination push and the hard work of state, district, school leaders, educators, and parents—the percentage of K-8 schools offering only remote instruction dropped from 23 percent in January to only 2 percent in May. The American Rescue Plan recognizes and addresses the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on underserved students . Districts and states must spend a combined minimum of 24 percent of total ARP ESSER funds on evidence-based practices to address lost instructional time and the impact of the coronavirus on underserved students, such as summer learning and enrichment programs, comprehensive afterschool programs, and tutoring. School and district leaders must ensure that these efforts respond to students’ social and emotional needs as well. ARP ESSER includes a first-of-its-kind maintenance of equity requirement to ensure that high-poverty school districts and schools are protected from funding cuts. The American Rescue Plan also includes additional funding for students with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness, Tribal education, nutrition security, broadband access, and child care for low-income families. ADVANCING EDUCATIONAL EQUITY IN THE BUILD BACK BETTER AGENDA The resources in the American Rescue Plan, however, are not enough to address the deep educational inequities that have existed in our country since its founding. President Biden’s Build Back Better Agenda directly addresses longstanding educational inequities and will revitalize our education system so that students have the opportunities to learn and prepare for jobs in tomorrow’s economy, which includes ensuring the needs of the whole child are addressed. Make a historic investment to support students in high-poverty schools . To ensure that every student—including those from underserved and under-resourced communities—can learn and thrive, the President’s discretionary budget request provides an additional $20 billion in funding for Title I schools. These investments will help address long-standing funding disparities between under-resourced school districts and wealthier districts:

• Providing meaningful incentives to examine and address inequalities in school funding systems. There is a $23 billion annual funding gap between white and nonwhite districts, and gaps between high- and low-poverty districts as well. A 2018 report from The Education Trust found that the highest poverty districts receive 7 percent less per pupil in State and local funding than the lowest poverty districts.
• Promoting competitive teacher pay. In 2017, public school teachers earned 18.7 percent less in weekly wages than their peer group of college educated workers, up from only 1.8 percent less in 1994. In many states, teachers with ten years of experience who head a household of four may qualify for public assistance.
• Increasing preparation for, access to, and success in rigorous coursework. Black and Native American students participate in AP coursework at half the national average . While 87% of low-poverty schools provide calculus, only 45 percent of high-poverty schools do. Lack of access to and preparation for success in mathematics and science coursework ultimately has a negative impact on the outcomes achieved by Black and Latino students in high-paying, in-demand STEM fields .   

Boost early childhood care and education The President’s Build Back Better Agenda makes historic investments in our youngest learners, so that every child can succeed, paving the way for the best-educated generation in U.S. history. Establishing universal preschool Preschool is critical to ensuring that children start kindergarten with the skills and supports that set them up for success in school. However, children of color are less likely to have access to high-quality preschool programs, resulting in disparate educational outcomes before students even enter kindergarten . Research shows that kids who attend preschool programs are more likely to take honors classes and less likely to repeat a grade, do better in math and reading , and are more likely to graduate from high school and enroll in college . Impacts are particularly strong for children from low-income families , and children with disabilities benefit from inclusive, accessible preschool programs with their peers . President Biden’s plan would establish a national partnership with states to offer free, high-quality, accessible, and inclusive preschool for all three-and four-year-olds. This will benefit five million children, and save the average family $13,000 a year on preschool tuition. This historic investment in America’s future will prioritize high-need areas first, establishing universal programs in these communities, so that all students can access them, facilitating the creation of diverse classrooms that are best for all students. It will also enable communities and families to choose the setting that works best for them, whether that’s a preschool classroom in a public school, family child care provider or child care center, or a Head Start program. The President’s plan supports low student-to-teacher ratios, high quality standards, and inclusive classroom environments. Make high-quality child care affordable and accessible High-quality early care and education helps ensure that children can take full advantage of education and training opportunities later in life, especially for children from low-income families and children of color, who disproportionately lack access to good child care options and who face learning disparities before they even can go to preschool. President Biden’s proposal will ensure that low- and middle-income families can access affordable, high-quality, child care. The most hard-pressed working families would pay nothing, and families earning 1.5 times their state’s median income would spend no more than 7 percent of their income on child care for their young children. The plan will also provide families with a range of inclusive and accessible options to choose from, from child care centers to family child care providers to Early Head Start programs. Child care providers will receive funding to support the true cost of quality early childhood education, which will allow them to provide care that is accessible and inclusive of children with disabilities. The President’s investments in child care and preschool will also support early childhood educators, more than nine in ten of whom are women and more than four in ten of whom are women of color. One report found that nearly half rely on public income support programs. The President’s plan establishes a $15 minimum wage for these educators and ensures those with similar qualifications as kindergarten teachers receive comparable compensation and benefits. And the President’s proposal will extend the American Rescue Plan’s expanded Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit so that families can instead choose to get a credit for up to half of their child care expenses, saving up to $8,000 per year. Invest in our teachers.  Few people have a bigger impact on a child’s life than a great teacher. Unfortunately, the U.S. faces a large and growing teacher shortage . Before the pandemic, schools needed an estimated additional 100,000 certified teachers , resulting in key positions going unfilled, the granting of emergency certifications, or teachers teaching out of their certification area. Shortages disproportionately impact students of color and rural communities. In schools with the highest percentage of students of color, the percentage of teachers who are uncertified is more than three times as large as in schools with the lowest percentage of students of color. The percentage of teachers in their first or second year of teaching is 70 percent higher . While access to teachers of color benefits all students and has a particularly strong impact on students of color , only around one in five teachers are people of color, compared to more than half of public school students. The Build Back Better Agenda will increase support for teacher preparation and invest in Grow Your Own programs and year-long, paid teacher residency programs. These programs have a significant impact on student outcomes and teacher retention , and are more likely to enroll underrepresented teacher candidates, including candidates of color . The plan would also invest in teacher preparation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Minority-Serving Institutions. The President has also called for increased investments in certifications in high-demand areas like special education and bilingual education, and is urging Congress to invest in programs that leverage teachers as leaders, such as high-quality mentorship programs for new teachers. These investments will improve the quality of new teachers, increase retention rates, and grow the number of teachers of color—all of which will improve student outcomes like  academic achievement and  high school graduation rates , resulting in higher long-term earnings, job creation, and a boost to the economy . As more teachers stay in the profession, districts will save money on recruiting and training, and can invest more in programs that directly impact students. Expand career pathways for middle and high school students. Strong dual enrollment programs increase college enrollment, and graduation. High-quality career and technical education models have significant positive effects on high school graduation, increase college enrollment, and improve wages . The President’s plan would provide more students with access to high-quality career and technical education programs that expand access to computer science; connect underrepresented students to careers in STEM and in in-demand, high-growth industry sectors; that include partnerships with institutions of higher education, employers, and other stakeholders; and that allow students to engage in quality work-based learning opportunities, earn a credential, and/or earn college credit. Eliminate inequitable school infrastructure conditions . According to one national study, there is a $38 billion gap between the current infrastructure spending on schools and actual infrastructure needs. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives American school infrastructure a grade of D+. Students of color are more likely to attend schools with rundown and unsafe facilities . Poor physical school conditions are associated with increased rates of student absenteeism, with one study finding poor ventilation associated with a 10 to 20 percent increase in student absences . While the American Rescue Plan provides critical resources for improving ventilation systems, it does not provide sufficient resources to address all health and safety needs, let alone long-overdue investments to increase energy efficiency, ensure our schools have the technology and labs to prepare students for jobs in tomorrow’s economy, or build new buildings where needed. President Biden’s plan supports investments to upgrade and build new public schools, ensuring that all our children have equal access to healthy learning environments that prepare them for success. It also invests in upgrading child care facilities and increasing the supply of child care in areas that need it most. Addressing lead in schools . There is no safe level of lead exposure for children. Lead can slow development and cause learning, behavior, and hearing problems in children, as well as lasting kidney and brain damage. Communities of color are at a higher risk of lead exposure. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework would make significant investments towards the elimination of all lead pipes and service lines in the country, and reduce lead exposure in our schools and child care facilities, improving the health of our country’s children, including in communities of color. Increasing broadband access for students and families . Broadband internet is critical to learning. Yet, by one definition, more than 30 million Americans live in areas where there is no broadband infrastructure that provides minimally acceptable speeds. In urban areas, there is a stark digital divide: a much higher percentage of white families report having a home broadband internet than Black, or Latino families . Native families in their tribal communities also lack sufficient access to high-speed internet. One Michigan study found that 47 percent of students who lived in rural areas had broadband access at home, compared to 77 percent of those in suburban areas. The last year made painfully clear the cost of these disparities, particularly for students who struggled to connect while learning remotely. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework would make historic investments in building “future proof” broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas, so that we finally reach 100 percent high-speed broadband coverage. Electrifying school buses for safe student travel . One study finds that when children ride buses with clean air technologies, they experience lower exposures to air pollution, less pulmonary inflammation, and reduced absenteeism. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework would make a down payment on electrifying our yellow school bus fleet. Increase support for children with disabilities. All children, including those with disabilities, should be provided the services and support they need to thrive in school and graduate ready for college or a career. The discretionary request provides an historic $2.6 billion increase for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grants that support special education and related services for children with disabilities in grades preschool through 12. This funding would, for the first time in eight years, increase the federal share of the cost of providing services to children with disabilities, and is a significant first step toward fully funding IDEA. The discretionary request also includes an additional $250 million for IDEA Part C, which supports early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities or delays, and funds services that have a proven track record of improving academic and developmental outcomes. This increase in funding would be paired with reforms to improve access to these vital services for underserved children, including children of color and children from low-income families. Prioritize the physical and mental well-being of students. The discretionary request provides $1 billion to increase the number of counselors, nurses, and mental health professionals in schools, prioritizing high-poverty schools. Support full-service community schools. Community schools play a critical role in providing comprehensive wrap-around services to students and their families, from afterschool to adult education opportunities to health and nutrition services. The discretionary request increases funding for these schools from $30 million to $443 million, an over ten-fold increase. Foster diverse schools. Schools play vital roles in bringing communities together. But, too many of the nation’s schools are still largely segregated by race and class , mirroring their communities. The discretionary request includes $100 million for a new voluntary grant program to help communities develop and implement strategies to build more diverse student bodies. As part of their application, applicants would be required to demonstrate strong student, family, teacher, and community involvement in their plans. Applicants would have flexibility to develop and implement school diversity plans that reflect their individual needs and circumstances, and improve educational opportunities and outcomes for students.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

Sorry, we did not find any matching results.

We frequently add data and we're interested in what would be useful to people. If you have a specific recommendation, you can reach us at [email protected] .

We are in the process of adding data at the state and local level. Sign up on our mailing list here to be the first to know when it is available.

Search tips:

• Check your spelling

• Try other search terms

• Use fewer words

How are public schools funded?

Public school funding comes primarily from local and state governments, while the federal government provides about 8% of local school funding.

Updated on Fri, July 21, 2023 by the USAFacts Team

Public schools in the US serve about 49.5 million students from pre-K to 12th grade. But how does it all get funded?

It's primarily a combination of funding from local and state governments, along with a smaller percentage from the federal government. Here's a breakdown.

Where does school funding come from?

In the 2019-2020 school year , 47.5% of funding came from state governments, 44.9% came from local governments, and the federal government provided about 7.6% of school funding.

Federal funding for schools

Most federal funding for public schools comes from the Child Nutrition Act, Title I, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), followed by other programs, according to 2018-19 school year data .

Title I grants

Title I provides funds to school districts with large numbers of low-income students. According to data from 2015-2016 school year, nearly 56,000 schools received money from Title I grants, serving more than 26 million students. About $14.6 billion went toward funds for Title I grants during the 2019-2020 school year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides funding to help children with disabilities receive quality special education and related services that are designed to meet their unique needs, according to the Education Department. In 2020–21, 7.5 million students received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) . Some $14.3 billion in federal funding went toward IDEA in 2022.

Child Nutrition Act

During the 2020 fiscal year, $23.6 billion in federal funds were allocated for child nutrition programs , providing free or reduced lunches to eligible students.

Other federal funding

Federal funds also went towards Head Start programs (supporting children from birth to age 5 in low-income families), magnet schools, gifted and talented programs, Impact Aid (assistance to districts with children residing in areas including Indian lands, military bases, and low-rent housing properties), vocational programs and Indian Education programs.

Get facts first

Unbiased, data-driven insights in your inbox each week

You are signed up for the facts!

State funding for schools

Some states allocate more money for public K-12 schools than others. In five states, two-thirds or more of K-12 public school funding comes from state revenue.

State revenues are raised from a variety of sources , primarily personal and corporate income and retail sales taxes, as well as taxes on tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, and lotteries—depending on the state.

Each state uses a different funding formula to determine how money for K-12 education is raised and how much each school district receives in a given school year. Funding formulas calculate whether school expenditures come from state governments versus local governments, such as counties, cities, or school districts themselves.

In at least 35 states, the state government sets a base level of funding per student that all school districts receive, according to a Congressional Research Service report that summarized various approaches of categorizing states' education funding models.

Local funding for schools

Local school revenue comes from cities, counties, or the school districts themselves. About 81% of local funding for schools comes from property taxes.

Other revenue comes from parents via parent-teacher associations and other groups. Schools also receive some private revenue from tuition, transportation fees, food services, district activities, textbook revenue, and summer school revenue.

Property taxes are a major source of school funding

According to the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics, property taxes contribute 30% or more of total public school funding in 29 states .

• More than 60% of total public school funding came from property taxes in New Hampshire—the highest of any state.
• On the low end, Vermont had such little funding from property taxes that it rounded to zero. And Hawaii's one school district did not receive any funding from property taxes.

How are charter schools funded?

Public charter schools are funded by state and local governments and may also receive federal funding through Department of Education Charter School Program grants . Charter schools are independently run under an agreement (charter) with the state, district, or another entity. School choice programs offered in some states give parents the option to enroll their kids in charter schools, magnet schools, or opt for home-schooling.

How has school funding changed over time?

Over the past decade, funding provided by local and state governments has increased steadily while federal funding dropped by $30.2 billion. This has resulted in a lower share of school funding from the federal government, dropping from 12.5% in the 2010-11 school year to 7.6% in the 2019-20 school year.

Although federal funding for public schools plays a minor role, it supports programs like Title I, IDEA, and the Child Nutrition Act. As federal contributions have decreased over the past decade, the responsibility for supporting education increasingly falls on local and state entities, highlighting the role of local property taxes and state revenues in funding public education.

Learn more about the state of education in the US , and get the data directly in your inbox by signing up for our email newsletter .

Explore more of USAFacts

Related articles, in 32 states, teacher salaries have not kept pace with inflation.

How uneven educational outcomes begin, and persist, in the US

65% of households with children report the use of online learning during pandemic

Who are the nation’s 4 million teachers?

Related Data

Public School Staff

6.63 million

High school graduates

3.67 million

National school lunch participation

30.1 million

Data delivered to your inbox

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER

Take the Quiz: Find the Best State for You »

What's the best state for you », biden’s budget significantly boosts k-12 education spending.

President Joe Biden unveiled a $1.5 trillion budget that would more than double funding for the federal Title 1 program.

Biden’s Budget Boosts Education Spending

The Associated Press

The White House on Friday unveiled President Joe Biden's so-called "skinny budget," which includes a significant investment in the country's public education system.

President Joe Biden's budget proposal for the 2022 fiscal year would more than double funding for the federal K-12 program that supports school districts serving lots of poor students – an aggressive funding pitch that would represent the most significant investment in the country's public education system since the program was enacted under the Johnson administration more than half a century ago.

"This discretionary request also makes a historic investment in the Title I grant program, which would help school districts deliver high-quality education to students from low-income families," Shalanda Young, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a letter dated April 9 to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate budget committees. "This additional funding, the single largest year-over-year increase since the inception of the Title I program, would address long-standing funding disparities between under-resourced school districts and their wealthier counterparts, providing critical new support to both students and teachers."

The Best Political Cartoons on Joe Biden

The White House unveiled on Friday Biden's so-called "skinny budget," a $1.5 trillion proposal that provides the rough contours of his vision for $753 billion in defense spending and $769 billion non-defense discretionary spending – the latter representing a 16% increase driven in large part by major funding boosts to education programs.

Under Biden's plan, the Education Department's budget would grow by 41% to $103 billion. The biggest increases in K-12 education include more than doubling funding for Title I, from $17 billion to $36.5 billion, and supercharging the federal program that supports students with disabilities, known as IDEA, from $13 billion to $15.5 billion, as well as increasing by $250 million intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities or delays.

The budget request also includes a $1.5 billion increase for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and a $1.2 billion increase in Head Start – both programs that help low-income families afford early education and child care – and $1 billion to help schools hire more counselors, nurses and mental health professionals as schools reopen for in-person learning more than a year into the coronavirus pandemic.

Though his budget request is not entirely a surprise – Biden ran on major increases to Title I and IDEA – the proposed boosts in funding come on the heels of a significant $130 billion investment for K-12 included in the most recent coronavirus relief package, and a proposed $100 billion for schools in the president's infrastructure package.

The president and his Democratic allies in Congress will likely be hard-pressed to muster enough support from Republicans to make the proposal a reality – indeed, budget requests typically signal an administration's policy priorities more than anything else.

On the higher education side, the president's budget request would increase funding for historically black colleges and universities, minority-serving institutions and community colleges by $600 million, as well as increase funding by $3 billion for Pell grants – which would increase the maximum award size by $400 – the largest one-time investment in the tuition assistance program since 2009.

Join the Conversation

Tags: Joe Biden , federal budget , public schools , education policy

America 2024

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

The 10 worst presidents.

U.S. News Staff Feb. 23, 2024

Cartoons on President Donald Trump

Feb. 1, 2017, at 1:24 p.m.

Photos: Obama Behind the Scenes

April 8, 2022

Photos: Who Supports Joe Biden?

March 11, 2020

Who Is Prime Minister Robert Fico?

Laura Mannweiler May 15, 2024

Biden and Trump Agree to Debate

Lauren Camera May 15, 2024

Biden Muddies Message on Israel

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 15, 2024

Consumers Get a Break From Inflation

Tim Smart May 15, 2024

Trump Team Gets Its Shot at Cohen

Lauren Camera May 14, 2024

New China Tariffs: What to Know

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder May 14, 2024

When it Comes to Education, the Federal Government is in Charge of ... Um, What?

• Posted August 29, 2017
• By Brendan Pelsue

Judging by her Senate confirmation process, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is one of the most controversial members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet. She was the only nominee to receive two “no” votes from members of her own party, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. On the eve of her confirmation vote, Democrats staged an all-night vigil in which they denounced her from the Senate floor. Following a 50–50 vote, Vice President Mike Pence was summoned in his capacity as president of the Senate to break the tie for DeVos — a first in the Senate’s 228-year history of giving “advice and consent” to presidential cabinet nominees.

Now that DeVos is several months into her tenure as the 11th secretary of education, both her supporters and detractors are paying close attention to the policies she is beginning to implement and how they will change the nation’s public schools. Even for veteran education watchers, however, this is difficult, not only because the Trump administration’s budget and policy proposals are more skeletal than those put forward by previous administrations, but because the Department of Education does not directly oversee the nation’s 100,000 public schools. States have some oversight, but individual municipalities, are, in most cases, the legal entities responsible for running schools and for providing the large majority of funding through local tax dollars.

Still, the federal government uses a complex system of funding mechanisms, policy directives, and the soft but considerable power of the presidential bully pulpit to shape what, how, and where students learn. Anyone hoping to understand the impact of DeVos’ tenure as secretary of education first needs to grasp some core basics: what the federal government controls, how it controls it, and how that balance does (and doesn’t) change from administration to administration.

This policy landscape is the subject of an Ed School course, A-129, The Federal Government and Schools, taught by Lecturer Laura Schifter , Ed.M.'07, Ed.D.'14,, a former senior adviser to Congressman George Miller (D-CA). Schifter has noticed that even for students who have worked in public schools, understanding the federal government’s current role in education can be complicated.

“Students frequently need a refresher on things like understanding the nature of the relationship between the federal government and the states, and what federalism is,” she says. With that in mind, the course begins with a civics review, especially the complicated politics of federalism, then moves on to a history lesson in federal education legislation since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and finally to an overview of the actual policy mechanisms through which the federal government enforces and implements the law. Throughout, students “read statutes, they read regulations, they read court decisions,” Schifter says — activities she believes are essential since there is no better way for educators to understand the law than to consult it themselves.

The civics and history lessons required to understand the federal government’s role in education are of course deeply intertwined and begin, as with so many things American, with the Constitution. That document makes no mention of education. It does state in the 10th Amendment that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States respectively.” This might seem to preclude any federal oversight of education, except that the 14th Amendment requires all states to provide “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

At least since the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, this has been interpreted to give the federal government the power to intervene in cases of legally sanctioned discrimination, like the segregation of public schools across the country; to mandate equal access to education for students with disabilities; and, according to some arguments, to correct for persistently unequal access to resources across states and districts of different income levels. According to Associate Professor Martin West , the government’s historical and current role in education reflects the conflicts inherent in these two central tenets of the nation’s charter.

Before 1965, the 10th Amendment seemed to prevail over the 14th, and federal involvement in K–12 education was minimal. Beginning with Horace Mann in Massachusetts, in the 1830s, states implemented reforms aimed at establishing a free, nonsectarian education system, but most national legislation was aimed at higher education. For example, the 1862 Morrill Act used proceeds from the sale of public lands to establish “land-grant” colleges focused on agriculture and engineering. (Many public universities, like Michigan State and historically black colleges like Tuskegee University, are land-grant institutions.)

And then, in the late 1860s, the first federal Department of Education under President Andrew Johnson was established to track education statistics. It was quickly demoted to “Office” and was not part of the president’s cabinet. It wasn’t until the mid-1960s that the federal government took a more robust role in K–12 education.

The impetus for the change was twofold. The Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which mandated the desegregation of public schools, gave the executive branch a legal precedent for enforcing equal access to education. At the same time, the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik I (and the technological brinksmanship of the Cold War more generally) created an anxiety that the nation’s schools were falling behind.

Those threads came together in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, a bill designed in part by Francis Keppel , then the commissioner of education (the pre-cabinet-level equivalent of secretary of education) and a transformative dean at the Ed School. The bill was a key part of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and has set the basic terms of the federal government’s involvement in education ever since.

Rather than mandating direct federal oversight of schools — telling states what to do — ESEA offered states funding for education programs on a conditional basis. In other words, states could receive federal funding provided they met the requirements outlined in certain sections, or titles, of the act.

Every major education initiative since 1965 has been about recalibrating the balance first struck by esea. Until 1980, the program was reauthorized every three years, each time with more specific guidelines about how federal funds were to be used (Title I money has to add to rather than replace locally provided education funding, for example). In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now IDEA) ensured that students with disabilities are provided a free appropriate public education to meet their needs. This initial flurry of expansion culminated in 1979, under President Jimmy Carter, with the establishment of the federal Department of Education as a separate, cabinet-level government agency that would coordinate what West calls the “alphabet soup” of the federal government’s various initiatives and requirements.

The Reagan administration briefly rolled back many ESEA provisions, but following the release of the 1983 A Nation at Risk report, which pointed out persistent inequalities in the education system and made unfavorable comparisons between U.S. students and those in other nations, old requirements were restored and new ones added.

The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) marked a new level of federal oversight by requiring states to set more rigorous student evaluation standards and, through testing, demonstrate “adequate yearly progress” in how those standards were met. Flaws in the law quickly surfaced. Standards did not take into account the differences between student populations, and so, according to West, the Department of Education often ended up “evaluating schools as much on the students they serve as opposed to their effectiveness in serving them.”

When the Obama administration came to office, it faced a legislative logjam on education. NCLB expired in 2007, but there was no Congressional consensus about the terms of its reauthorization. The administration responded by issuing waivers to states that did not meet nclb standards, provided they adopted other policies the administration favored, like the Common Core standards. At the same time, the Race to the Top program offered competitive grants that awarded points to states based on their implementation of policies like performance-based evaluations. The two programs were seen by many conservatives as executive overreach, and when ESEA was reauthorized in 2015 as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), NCLB standardized testing requirements were kept, but the evaluation and accountability systems meant to respond to the results of those tests became the responsibility of individual states. When DeVos was testifying before the Senate in January 2017, the federal government still had a greater hand in public education than it did at any point before No Child Left Behind, but it had also recently experienced the greatest rollback in its oversight since an era of almost continual expansion that began in 1965.

Back in Schifter’s class, students grapple with simulated versions of the actual dilemma now facing the Trump administration: how to design and implement policy. For Schifter’s students, that means choosing between two final projects: a mock Congressional markup on an education-related bill or a mock grant proposal similar to Race to the Top. For Trump, it means navigating how education policy is shaped by all three branches of government.

Congress has the ability to write statute and distribute funds. If, for example, it releases funds as formula grants, which are distributed to all states on the same basis, it can ensure universal adoption of programs like Title I. Competitive grants like Race to the Top arguably make policy implementation more efficient: the executive branch can regulate, clarify, and be selective about its enforcement of the law. And judicial rulings can redefine what qualifies as implementation of policy, as the Supreme Court did in its 2017 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1 ruling, a unanimous decision that interpreted idea as requiring that a disabled student’s “educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances.”

It seems the Department of Education’s approach under DeVos is still taking shape. Some of its actions have been swift and decisive. In February, the Departments of Justice and Education jointly announced they were rescinding the Obama-era guidance protecting transgender students’ right to use a bathroom corresponding with their gender identity.

In other areas, however, the department’s positions have been vague. On Inauguration Day, the administration ordered a freeze on state evaluation and accountability plans for schools, which under essa must be federally approved. In a February 10 letter to chief state school officers, however, DeVos said states should proceed with their proposals. If the department is lenient in its evaluation of these plans, it would amount to a de facto rollback in federal oversight because the Department of Education would be choosing not to exercise its powers to the full extent permitted by law.

The administration’s proposed budget, released in May under the title “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” calls for $500 million dollars in new charter school funding — a 50 percent increase over current levels, but less than the $759 million authorized over the first two years of the George W. Bush administration. The budget also allots an additional $1 billion in “portable” Title I funding, meaning the money would follow students who opt to attend charter or magnet schools (currently it stays in their home districts). Under ESSA, however, much of what was once overseen by the Department of Education has now reverted to the states.

“Ironically, we will see an administration that will be reluctant to dictate specific policies,” says Professor Paul Reville , the Massachusetts Secretary of Education under former Governor Deval Patrick. This doesn’t mean, of course, that the Department of Education and the administration are unable to exert influence, but it appears they are planning to do so through cutbacks rather than new initiatives. Trump’s budget proposes a 13.5 percent cut in the Education Department’s 2018 budget, including a $2.3 billion cut that would eliminate Supporting Effective Instruction States Grants, which fund teacher training and development.

And cutbacks in other areas could also affect students, since not all federal funding for schools comes from the Department of Education. For example, money for the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, whose school lunch nutritional guidelines were recently loosened by an executive order, comes through the Department of Agriculture. Public school employees like occupational and physical therapists bill much of their work through Medicaid, which also provides dental, vision, hearing, and mental health services. Programs like this are at risk in part because the administration’s proposed budget cuts Medicaid by $800 billion dollars.

Beyond the budget specifics, there is also the power of the presidential bully pulpit. Reville cites evidence that the administration’s rhetoric on charter schools and vouchers has already put conservative state governments “on the move, emboldened by the new federal stance on choice.”

The administration’s budget is only, however, a wish list. The actual power to determine federal expenditures rests in the House and the Senate, and even in years of less drastic proposals, legislators often pass a federal budget that looks quite different from the one suggested by the president. Trump’s budget has received pushback, and for some education-minded conservatives, the administration’s advocacy on their behalf is unwelcome. Frederick Hess , Ed.M.'90, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, believes in school choice — but worries what will happen if Trump pushes for it.

“The last thing we want,” Hess says of school choice, “is for the least popular, most maladroit leader in memory to become the advocate for an otherwise popular idea.”

Not everyone agrees with Hess’ assessment of the president, of course, but his concerns do illustrate a basic idea about policymaking that Schifter has borrowed from political scientist John Kingdon and tries to pass on to her students. For any given idea to become a legal reality, the theory goes, policy proposals are only one part of a triangle. Politicians must also effectively prove the existence of the problem, and they must do so at a moment in history when the fix they are proposing is politically possible. For Lyndon Johnson in 1965, the problem was that the nation’s schools were not serving all students equally. The solution was for the federal government to distribute funds in a way that would correct the balance. The political moment was when both Cold War anxieties and newly robust understandings of the 14th Amendment made the changes possible. The result was a new relationship between the federal government and the states on education policy.

Although the Trump administration has outlined some first principles, both its ability to make its case to the American people and the possibilities of this unprecedented political moment remain to be seen.

Brendan Pelsue is a writer whose last piece in Ed. looked at gap year programs .

Illustrations by Simone Massoni

Ed. Magazine

The magazine of the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Related Articles

Equitable Recovery: Addressing Learning Challenges after COVID

Neighborhoods Matter

Road to COVID Recovery

Report Federal Funding Streams for Child Care and Early Childhood Education

Easily browse the critical components of this report…

Key Takeaways

There are many federal funding streams that can support child care access and affordability, creating a patchwork system of funding.

The federal government has several different approaches to providing funding for child care and early childhood, with state involvement varying significantly across programs.

Child care and early childhood education are always top of mind for parents, but over the last few years these topics have emerged as a priority of state legislatures and federal policymakers. Concerns about access, affordability and workforce shortages were widespread during the pandemic and have remained a persistent issue across the states.

While many states have taken action to address child care needs, the federal government remains a key source of funding for child care and early education programs. Several longstanding federal programs support access to child care and early childhood education, which span multiple federal agencies and take a wide variety of approaches to supporting children and families. Many federal programs complement state efforts, but the patchwork nature of federal child care funding can make it difficult for states to understand the full range of funding sources.

Some federal funding streams are specific to child care and early childhood, such as the Preschool Development Grants Birth Through Five (PDG B-5). In fiscal year 2024, the federal government is estimated to spend $25.3 billion on programs solely focused on child care and early childhood.

Several other large funding streams allow portions of funds to be spent on child care, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In FY24, funding for these programs totaled $38.9 billion, although only a fraction of this total is spent on child care.

The state role in federal early childhood programs varies significantly. Some programs, such as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), allow states to set major components such as eligibility rules. Other programs, such as Head Start, have funds that flow directly from the federal government to local agencies or providers with no significant state role.

This resource provides a comprehensive summary of federal funding for child care and early learning. The resource distinguishes between funding streams that exclusively support child care programs and those with child care as an allowable use and includes a summary of high-level requirements and the state role, if any, in each program. There is also a short section describing tax credits that can help with child care access and costs.

Funding Streams Specifically for Early Childhood Education and Care

The following funding streams are designed to support early childhood programs that cover at least some portion of the birth through 5 age range.

Child Care  and Development Fund (CCDF)

CCDF  is designed to help states, territories, and tribes create child care subsidy programs for low-income families. The CCDF funding stream combines both mandatory and discretionary funding for states.

Child Care Entitlements to the States (CCES)

CCES funding is mandatory and allocated in two separate parts. One part is a fixed amount each year that has no matching or maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements of states. The fixed amount was $2.92 billion annually until the American Rescue Plan Act permanently increased the appropriation to $3.55 billion annually, beginning in FY21.

The second part is an amount based on the share of children under age 13 and includes both MOE and matching requirements. To meet the MOE requirement, each state must spend 100% of the amount it spent on child care programs through the Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in the mid-1990s. To meet the matching requirement, states must match their MOE funds with state dollars at the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage rate.

States must spend at least 70% of CCES funds on families that are receiving, transitioning out of, or at risk of needing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits. States may also transfer up to 30% of funds from federal TANF block grants to CCDF.

Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)

CCDBG funds are discretionary, meaning funding is subject to annual appropriations. CCDBG has seen several large increases in funding levels in the last several years.

Prior to FY18, CCES was funded at a higher level than CCDBG. This changed with FY18 appropriations that nearly doubled CCDBG funding from $2.9 billion to $5.2 billion, driven mainly by the need for additional funding to implement the 2014 CCDBG Act reauthorization. CCDBG appropriations continued to increase during the pandemic, including through supplemental pandemic relief funding. In the last two fiscal years, CCDBG received another significant increase in annual funding: 30% in FY23 and 9% in FY24.

Though CCES and CCDBG funding amounts are determined differently, there are overarching elements that cut across both programs under the CCDF umbrella.

Head Start, Early Head Start, and Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships

The  Head Start  program provides education, nutrition, health and other support services to children and families in poverty, with an emphasis on parent engagement. The program is comprised of Head Start preschool for children ages 3 through school age and Early Head Start for children ages 0-2 and pregnant women. Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships are competitive grants that allow Early Head Start grantees to partner with local child care providers who serve children in low-income families. All Head Start grants flow directly to local public and private organizations that run early childhood programs which can be center-based, home-based, or another locally designed delivery method.

Head Start funding has steadily increased in the last decade and has received several supplemental appropriations to address the needs of young children and families in the aftermath of natural disasters. However, Head Start funding levels do not enable states to serve all eligible children. Additionally, a recent  GAO report  found that the Head Start allocation formula in statute does not account for changes in child poverty rates over time, leading states with increasing child poverty rates to serve a lower proportion of eligible children and states with decreasing child poverty rates to receive relatively higher levels of funding compared to states with increasing rates.

Preschool Development Grants Birth Through Five (PDG B-5)

PDG B-5  is a competitive grant program designed to help states and territories improve coordination and collaboration between existing early childhood systems through a mixed-delivery model. PDG B-5 includes two kinds of grants: a one-year planning grant and a three-year renewal grant. Both grants require a 30% non-federal match to the federal funds provided.

An  HHS report to Congress  found that states have used PDG B-5 grants for a range of activities such as family engagement, integrating various early care and education systems, and expanding or revising quality standards.

Since the start of the program in 2018, 54 states and territories have received planning grants and 48 have received renewal grants. There has been widespread interest in the program, with demand for renewal grants exceeding the funding allocated to the program.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

IDEA  provides federal funding to states and school districts to support the cost of early intervention, education and related services for children and youth with disabilities. The law also establishes requirements for identifying children with disabilities and providing appropriate services and educational support by age range. IDEA requires that states supplement, not supplant, funding for students with disabilities.

IDEA Part B, Section 619: Special Education Preschool Grants

Part B, Section 619  of IDEA provides a preschool formula grant to states who provide a free appropriate public education to all children ages 3-5 with disabilities. Currently, all states receive Section 619 funding. Depending on state law, Section 619 funding may be used to serve 2-year-old children.

Child Care Access Means Parents in Schools (CCAMPIS)

CCAMPIS  is a competitive grant program that helps institutions of higher education (IHEs) provide subsidized child care on or near campus for low-income student-parents attending undergraduate or graduate school. IHEs must meet certain requirements to be eligible for the grant, including leveraging institutional resources and using a sliding fee scale for child care. Student-parents who receive CCAMPIS subsidies may also receive other federal child care for which they are eligible.

Allows Funding for Early Childhood Education and Care

The following funding streams are not solely intended to support early childhood programs, but funds can be used for that purpose.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

TANF  block grants provide states with funding to operate programs that help low-income families with children achieve economic self-sufficiency. The total funding level for the grant and the amount states receive is based on historical spending from 1996. The grant also includes a maintenance of effort provision for states.

States can use TANF funds for cash assistance or a variety of other services, including child care. States may transfer up to 30% of their TANF funds to CCDBG. In  FY22  , 27 states transferred some of their federal TANF funds to CCDBG, for a total of $976 million. Of these 27 states, the average percent transferred was 16%, and only one state transferred the maximum of 30%.

States may also spend TANF funds directly on child care. TANF funds spent directly on child care, rather than transferred to CCDBG, do not need to meet CCDBG health and safety standards. In FY22, 34 states and D.C. used a portion of federal TANF funds for direct spending on early care and education, for a total of $1.4 billion.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I-A

ESEA Title I-A  funds are formula grants intended to support schools in serving students from low-income families and comprise the largest source of federal funding for K-12 education. Schools and districts can choose to use their Title I-A funds to  support early childhood education  and the transition to kindergarten for eligible children, including through school-operated, district-operated, or other public or community-based programs. Preschool programs that receive Title I funds must comply with Head Start performance standards.

Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)

SSBG  is a formula grant to states that provides a flexible funding stream to support a variety of social services for vulnerable children and adults. SSBG funds can be used for over 28 types of social services, including child care. There is no matching requirement for states, and states may transfer up to 10% of their TANF funds to SSBG.

USDA Rural Development Programs

The  U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development office  has several grant and loan programs focused on public service and business facilities in rural areas, which can include child care providers. USDA and HHS have a  joint resource guide  specifically on strengthening and expanding child care facilities in rural communities.

Rural Development grant programs which may be used for child care facilities include the following, with FY24 funding levels noted.

• Community Facilities Programs  include multiple grant and loan opportunities to establish or improve facilities for public services in rural communities ($18 million).
• Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program  provides loans and grants to microenterprise development organizations that support small businesses with no more than 10 employees, through microloans, training, and technical assistance ($5 million).
• Community Facilities Guaranteed Loan Program  provides loan guarantees to eligible lenders to develop essential community facilities in rural areas ($650 million).
• Business and Industry Loan Guarantees  provide loan guarantees to lenders for their loans to rural businesses ($1.6 billion).
• Rural Business Development Grants  support the development of small businesses in rural areas ($20.5 million).

CHIPS and Science Act

Funding from the  CHIPS Act  is designed to increase U.S. manufacturing of microchips, though it also takes a new approach to incentivize companies receiving grants to provide child care for workers. The Commerce Department, which administers the grant, requires semiconductor manufacturers applying for at least $150 million to  submit a plan to provide child care  for construction workers who build the plant and for manufacturing workers.

Though this funding does not directly pay for child care, it represents a novel federal approach to try to address child care needs.

Tax Credits

There are several federal tax credits designed to help increase access to child care for families. Eligibility, amount and process differ, though families may be able to benefit from multiple credits. While none of the tax credits provides funding to states, the credits can benefit children, families and employers in every state, and many states have created their own state-level versions of these credits.

Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC)

The  CDCTC  is a non-refundable tax credit intended to defray the costs of child care for children under age 13 or care for adult dependents. Eligible parents can claim a percentage of their child care expenses, up to a limit of $3,000 for one child or $6,000 for two or more children. The percentage of expenses families can claim ranges from 20% to 35%, depending on income level.

Child Tax Credit (CTC)

The  CTC  is a partially refundable tax credit for families with children under age 17 who have an income of at least $2,500. Parents can receive a maximum of $2,000 per child, with the specific amount calculated based on household income and number of children. Families can use money from the CTC to cover any needed expenses, including child care.

45F Tax Credit for Employer-Provided Child Care

The  45F  is a non-refundable credit designed to incentivize employers to provide child care options for employees by allowing businesses that do so to reduce their income tax liability. Eligible businesses can receive 25% of qualified child care expenditures plus 10% of qualified child care resource and referral expenditures, up to a total of $150,000 per year.

Table of Federal Funding for Child Care and Early Childhood Education

Contact ncsl.

For more information on this topic, use this form to reach NCSL staff.

• What is your role? Legislator Legislative Staff Other
• Is this a press or media inquiry? No Yes
• Admin Email

Related Resources

Dhs grant cut coalition letter.

NCSL and 17 nationwide stakeholder organizations called on Congress to restore cuts to U.S. Department of Homeland Security and FEMA made in the FY24 spending agreement. The cuts made in the FY24 spending agreement for DHS will result in an inability to sustain response and recovery capabilities across the country and put critical infrastructure at risk.

Capitol to Capitol | May 6, 2024

In this issue of Capitol to Capitol NCSL Supports Rescheduling of Cannabis, Federal Communications Commission Reinstates Net Neutrality Rules, and more.

Reading Room

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

How to find free job training

Learn about government job training programs that can give you new skills to reach your career goals.

Most states offer job training programs. Find your state labor department website to search for job training.

CareerOneStop for training and resources

Visit the Department of Labor's CareerOneStop training portal . The site offers resources to help you:

• Plan a job search
• Draft resumes
• Prepare for interviews
• Identify the training you need
• Learn about types of training programs
• Pay for job training

Career training for specific groups

Training programs for older workers.

The Senior Community Service Employment Program offers local community service opportunities to help you learn new skills. With these skills, you will be prepared for new jobs outside of the program. Find organizations near you that can get you started .

Training programs for people with disabilities

These  job training resources for people with disabilities  can help you prepare for and find career opportunities that match your skills and abilities.

Training programs for young adults

If you are between 16-24, these programs can help you enter the workforce:

• Explore GetMyFuture’s activities, tools, and resources  to help you create and reach your career goals.
• Job Corps is a free program for low income young adults. The program builds your academic and trade skills to prepare for a career. Learn more about Job Corps.

Training programs for veterans

Learn about government programs that offer  job training for veterans and military spouses .

Training programs for Native Americans

Use the Native American Program Finder to learn about local organizations that provide employment training . These programs help you get:

• Employment and training services
• Educational assistance
• Job placement assistance

LAST UPDATED: December 6, 2023

Have a question?

Ask a real person any government-related question for free. They will get you the answer or let you know where to find it.

What New School Spending Data Show About a Coming Fiscal Cliff

• Share article

Schools stand to lose a significant chunk of revenue when federal COVID-relief aid expires.

That’s one of the takeaways from a new batch of federal data illustrating the money schools received (revenues) and the money they invested (expenditures) during the 2021-22 school year—the second full one after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The data come from the results of the Common Core of Data National Public Education Financial Survey , which annually collects data from school districts nationwide.

The numbers, published on May 7 by the National Center for Education Statistics , a research arm of the U.S. Department of Education, lag present-day conditions by two school years .

Still, they offer a snapshot of America’s investments in public school during an especially tumultuous period, when students nationwide had generally returned to school buildings full time, and academic recovery and related challenges such as chronic absenteeism were proving especially daunting.

On average, America’s K-12 schools spent $15,591 per student, up nearly $800 compared with two school years earlier when adjusted for inflation.

Those figure perennially vary from state to state. In Utah, schools spent roughly $9,500 per child on average, while the comparable figure in New York was more than $29,000.

Schools in states including California, Louisiana, and North Carolina spent between 6 and 7.5 percent more per student in 2021-22 than they did the previous year. By contrast, spending per pupil dropped slightly more than 4 percent in states including Maine, Montana, and Wyoming.

The new data also preview challenges school districts are already bracing for in the coming months and years.

The emergency aid that drove the federal government’s biggest-ever single-year contribution to education funding is set to expire in just four months.

Some states are already tightening investments in anticipation of less revenue coming in. Districts in many states are pondering teacher layoffs and building closures .

Here are a few key takeaways from the latest batch of data.

Federal funding rose during the pandemic—but state and local funding went down.

It’s no surprise to learn that the share of education funding that came from the federal government increased significantly during the pandemic. Between 2020 and 2021, Congress approved close to $200 billion in emergency aid for public schools .

That translated to the federal government contributing 13.7 percent of all the funding K-12 schools received in the 2021-22 school year. In previous non-COVID years, the federal share typically hovered around 8 to 10 percent .

As ever, the overwhelming majority of funding for K-12 schools comes from state budget allocations and local property taxes, among other state and local sources.

However, state revenues for K-12 schools declined 2.6 percent from the 2020-21 school year to the 2021-22 school year when adjusted for inflation, while local revenues declined 2 percent over the same period, according to the new data.

Schools spent billions of COVID-relief dollars soon after they got them.

ESSER dollars—more than $38 billion—represented slightly less than 5 percent of all the money K-12 schools spent in the 2021-22 school year.

During that time, schools were working through allocations from the set of ESSER II funds Congress appropriated in December 2020 and beginning to spend the largeest set of COVID-relief funds, ESSER III, approved in March 2021.

These data show that districts collectively spent roughly 20 percent of the federal government’s overall ESSER investment during the 2021-22 school year. They spent another $24 billion in ESSER funds the previous school year . The majority of ESSER spending took place after fall 2022.

Some districts are still finishing up their ESSER spending, even as the Sept. 30 deadline looms to commit funds to particular expenses. Districts have until Jan. 31, 2025, to actually spend the money, and the U.S. Department of Education may grant deadline extensions for school districts to spend funds they’ve already committed to contract expenses.

Costs of food and bus services are rising precipitously.

Virtually everything got more expensive during the pandemic, thanks to inflation. But even adjusting for inflation, some costs grew more rapidly than others. Between 2020-21 and 2021-22, schools saw:

• a 21.3 percent increase in the cost of food service.
• a 14.5 percent increase in the cost of school transportation.
• a 9.5 percent increase in the cost of “enterprise services” that operate at least partially on user fees, like school bookstores or certain after-school activities.

Supply-chain issues and pandemic-era precautions likely contributed to increased costs for food and buses.

Fuel costs during this period were at record highs, too, in part because of the start of the war between Russia and Ukraine. Transportation has also gotten more expensive for districts investing in electric buses , which some states are mandating despite their higher upfront costs than traditional diesel buses.

The majority of funding for K-12 schools pays for people.

Out of $767 billion spent on K-12 education from all sources combined during the 2021-22 school year, $595 billion went to compensation for school staff. Salaries and wages accounted for $416 billion, and benefits like health-care coverage and pensions cost another $178.3 billion.

Those costs are rising for districts in part because of the labor market. Workers have more leverage to demand higher wages or seek employment outside the public sector.

Similarly, the bulk of America’s K-12 investment in the 2021-22 school year went to instructional expenses. Those items accounted for slightly less than 60 percent of all school district spending. The next largest category was operations and maintenance, with 9 percent.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Contact Contact

Join Donate

2024 AmeriCorps State and National Grants

AmeriCorps distributes more than $370 million in grants and education awards as part of its largest grant competition through the AmeriCorps State and National program.

Grants will support more than 35,000 AmeriCorps members . The AmeriCorps members supported by these grants are eligible to earn more than $157.7 million in education awards to help pay for college or to pay back student loans.

Read the press release

Jump to bottom

Back to top

You are leaving AmeriCorps.gov

The website you’re going to is not part of the AmeriCorps domain and may not be under AmeriCorps’ control. Its privacy and security practices and policies may differ from AmeriCorps’. AmeriCorps is not responsible for the link, nor does it endorse the content of the third-party website.

Click on the continue button to proceed to the external website; otherwise click cancel to stay on AmeriCorps.gov.

Language selection

• Français fr

Grants and funding from the Government of Canada

Select the type of funding you need to get a more specific finder.

What type of funding are you looking for?

• Agriculture
• Arts, culture and sport
• Environment
• For Indigenous peoples
• Gender equality
• International development
• Jobs or apprenticeship training
• Leave from work, caregiving, pensions
• Student aid

Page details

• Frequently asked questions
• Our Ministers
• Our Executive
• Organisation chart
• Reconciliation Action Plan
• National Redress Scheme
• Annual Reports
• 2024–25 Budget
• 2023–24 Budget
• 2022-23 October Budget
• 2022-23 March Budget
• 2021-22 Budget
• 2020-21 Budget
• Legal services annual expenditure - former Departments
• Corporate Plan
• Gifts and Benefits Register
• How to make a freedom of information (FOI) request
• The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013
• FOI Disclosure Log, former Department of Education, Skills and Employment
• Disclosure log archive
• Senate Continuing Order – Listing of Entity Contracts
• Senate Continuing Order — Listing of Departmental Files
• Senate order 15 Departmental and agency appointments and vacancies
• Terms and Conditions for Public reviews and consultations
• Campaign activities
• Procurement Complaints
• Census Highlight Reports
• Education online complaint form
• Education online contact form
• Emergency support services
• Reconciliation Commitment
• Announcements

Funding for the Inclusion Support Program

• Download Funding for the Inclusion Support Program as a DOCX (630.55kb)
• Download Funding for the Inclusion Support Program as a PDF (255.55kb)

We aim to provide documents in an accessible format. If you're having problems accessing a document, please contact us for help .

Government moves to fund students on university placements for teaching, nursing and social work

Students experiencing "poverty placement" caused by mandatory, unpaid practical placements required for their university degrees will be eligible for a new Commonwealth payment to be unveiled in the upcoming budget.

University students studying teaching must do 16 weeks of unpaid practical experience, nurses 20 weeks and social workers 26 weeks.

Earlier this year, students told ABC News they were forced to choose between food and going to the doctor in order to meet their course requirements and graduate.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said these students would now be eligible for a new Commonwealth Prac Payment of $319.50 a week.

"Teachers give our children the best start in life, they deserve a fair start to their career," Mr Albanese said.

"We're proud to be backing the hard work and aspiration of Australians looking to better themselves by studying at university."

Yesterday, the government announced changes to student loan indexation that  wiped out $3 billion in HECS payments .

The prime minister said the measures would provide cost-of-living relief to students.

"We're funding support for placements so our future nurses, teachers and social workers can gain the experience they need," Mr Albanese said.

"We're making HECS fairer so no-one is held back by student debt. And we're expanding access to university in our regions and suburbs to make sure no Australian is left behind."

The government's move was recommended in a recent wide-ranging review of higher education called the Australian Universities Accord.

The accord panel's expert report said giving students financial support for placements was essential, to ensure they could meet their placement requirements "without falling into poverty".

"This will give people who have signed up to do some of the most important jobs in this country a bit of extra help to get the qualifications they need," Education Minister Jason Clare said.

"Placement poverty is a real thing. I have met students who told me they can afford to go to uni, but they can't afford to do the prac."

The government hasn't revealed how much the program will cost and didn't expect to have an estimate until budget night.

It has calculated 68,000 higher education students and 5,000 VET students would be eligible for the payment.

The amount of $319.50 a week is benchmarked to the single Austudy weekly rate.

It will be means tested and available from July 1, 2025.

Mr Clare said the government had listened to concerns raised by students after record HECS indexation last year and rising cost-of-living pressures.

"Some students say prac means they have to give up their part-time job, and that they don't have the money to pay the bills," Mr Clare said.

"This is practical support for practical training."

The minister for skills and training, Brendan O'Connor, said the new payment would help with a shortage of health workers.

"This prac payment is in addition to the government's investment in Fee-Free TAFE, which is supporting thousands to gain Division 2 nursing qualifications and helping to address skills shortages in aged and health care," Mr O'Connor said.

"This is an additional payment to support nursing TAFE students who have extra costs such as uniforms, travel, temporary accommodation, or childcare, during mandatory clinical placements."

As well as the university accord, the government said the new payment formed part of its response to its gender equality strategy Working for Women.

It also said the payment would help with the supply of social workers as Australia battles with a domestic violence crisis.

• X (formerly Twitter)

Governor Newsom Unveils Revised State Budget, Prioritizing Balanced Solutions for a Leaner, More Efficient Government

Published: May 10, 2024

The Budget Proposal — Covering Two Years — Cuts Spending, Makes Government Leaner, and Preserves Core Services Without New Taxes on Hardworking Californians

Watch Governor Newsom’s May Revise presentation here

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW:  The Governor’s revised budget proposal closes both this year’s remaining $27.6 billion budget shortfall and next year’s projected $28.4 billion deficit while preserving many key services that Californians rely on — including education, housing, health care, and food assistance.

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today released a May Revision proposal for the 2024-25 fiscal year that ensures the budget is balanced over the next two fiscal years by tightening the state’s belt and stabilizing spending following the tumultuous COVID-19 pandemic, all while preserving key ongoing investments.

Under the Governor’s proposal, the state is projected to achieve a positive operating reserve balance not only in this budget year but also in the next. This “budget year, plus one” proposal is designed to bring longer-term stability to state finances without delay and create an operating surplus in the 2025-26 budget year.

In the years leading up to this May Revision, the Newsom Administration recognized the threats of an uncertain stock market and federal tax deadline delays – setting aside $38 billion in reserves that could be utilized for shortfalls. That has put California in a strong position to maintain fiscal stability.

“Even when revenues were booming, we were preparing for possible downturns by investing in reserves and paying down debts – that’s put us in a position to close budget gaps while protecting core services that Californians depend on. Without raising taxes on Californians, we’re delivering a balanced budget over two years that continues the progress we’ve fought so hard to achieve, from getting folks off the streets to addressing the climate crisis to keeping our communities safe.” – Governor Gavin Newsom

Below are the key takeaways from Governor Newsom’s proposed budget:

A BALANCED BUDGET OVER TWO YEARS.  The Governor is solving two years of budget problems in a single budget, tightening the state’s belt to get the budget back to normal after the tumultuous years of the COVID-19 pandemic. By addressing the shortfall for this budget year — and next year — the Governor is eliminating the 2024-25 deficit and eliminating a projected deficit for the 2025-26 budget year that is $27.6 billion (after taking an early budget action) and $28.4 billion respectively.

CUTTING SPENDING, MAKING GOVERNMENT LEANER.  Governor Newsom’s revised balanced state budget cuts one-time spending by $19.1 billion and ongoing spending by $13.7 billion through 2025-26. This includes a nearly 8% cut to state operations and a targeted elimination of 10,000 unfilled state positions, improving government efficiency and reducing non-essential spending — without raising taxes on individuals or proposing state worker furloughs. The budget makes California government more efficient, leaner, and modern — saving costs by streamlining procurement, cutting bureaucratic red tape, and reducing redundancies.

PRESERVING CORE SERVICES & SAFETY NETS.  The budget maintains service levels for key housing, food, health care, and other assistance programs that Californians rely on while addressing the deficit by pausing the expansion of certain programs and decreasing numerous recent one-time and ongoing investments.

NO NEW TAXES & MORE RAINY DAY SAVINGS.  Governor Newsom is balancing the budget by getting state spending under control — cutting costs, not proposing new taxes on hardworking Californians and small businesses — and reducing the reliance on the state’s “Rainy Day” reserves this year.

HOW WE GOT HERE:  California’s budget shortfall is rooted in two separate but related developments over the past two years.

• First, the state’s revenue, heavily reliant on personal income taxes including capital gains, surged in 2021 due to a robust stock market but plummeted in 2022 following a market downturn. While the market bounced back by late 2023, the state continued to collect less tax revenue than projected in part due to something called “capital loss carryover,” which allows losses from previous years to reduce how much an individual is taxed.
• Second, the IRS extended the tax filing deadline for most California taxpayers in 2023 following severe winter storms, delaying the revelation of reduced tax receipts. When these receipts were able to eventually be processed, they were 22% below expectations. Without the filing delay, the revenue drop would have been incorporated into last year’s budget and the shortfall this year would be significantly smaller.

CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY REMAINS STRONG:  The Governor’s revised balanced budget sets the state up for continued economic success. California’s economy remains the 5th largest economy in the world and for the first time in years, the state’s population is increasing and tourism spending recently experienced a record high. California is #1 in the nation for new business starts , #1 for access to venture capital funding , and the #1 state for manufacturing , high-tech , and agriculture .

Additional details on the May Revise proposal can be found in this fact sheet and at www.ebudget.ca.gov .