The Tax Deduction for Classroom Expenses of Elementary and Secondary School Teachers

Linda Levine
Specialist in Labor Economics

A temporary, above-the-line deduction for certain classroom expenses paid or incurred during the school year by eligible elementary and secondary school (K-12) teachers, among other educators, was authorized in the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-147) and extended to December 31, 2009, in the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, which is Division C of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343). In December 2009, the House passed H.R. 4213, which includes among other provisions a package of tax extenders, of which the classroom expense deduction is a part. In March 2010, the Senate passed an amended version of the bill. An otherwise unchanged classroom expense deduction would be extended to December 31, 2010.


Date of Report: June 16, 2010
Number of Pages: 7
Order Number: RS21682
Price: $19.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States and Territories: Overview and Analysis of the Allotment Formula

Scott Szymendera
Analyst in Disability Policy

Umar Moulta-Ali
Presidential Management Fellow

Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, authorizes the federal government to make grants to states and territories to provide vocational rehabilitation (VR) services to persons with disabilities who are interested in seeking and retaining employment. State and territorial VR agencies work with clients to determine their optimal employment outcomes and put together packages of services to help them meet these employment goals. 

The authorization for the VR program expired at the end of FY2003; Congress has continued to make appropriations to the Department of Education to fund the program under the provisions of an extension clause in the Rehabilitation Act. Both chambers worked on bills in the 109th Congress that would formally extend this authorization through FY2011, but these bills did not result in the enactment of a law before the end of that Congress. Reauthorization bills were not taken up by either chamber in the 110th Congress, although the 111th Congress included a supplemental appropriation for the VR program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The President's FY2011 budget request proposes an extension of the VR appropriation as part of a reauthorization of Workforce Investment Act of 2005. 

Funds for the VR program are allotted to states and territories according to a formula that allocates money based on three factors: state allotments in FY1978, current state population, and current state per capita income. 

However, a 2009 GAO report cited the VR funding formula as inequitable because the formula does not fully account for (1) the actual number of individuals with disabilities within a state or territory, (2) differences in the costs of providing VR services across states and territories, (3) the ability for a state or territory to meet its statutory fund-matching obligations to the program, and (4) varying population growth since the mid-1970s across states and territories. 

Others have criticized the allotment formula for not ensuring that each state or territory is given an increase in funding to match increases in the cost of living. In addition, the formula has been criticized for not including measures related to a state's or territory's overall performance.


Date of Report: May 24, 2010
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: RL34017
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Research and Development Funding at Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

The historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which have traditionally educated a significant number of the nation's blacks, have faced, and continue to face, substantial challenges in attempting to enhance their academic and research capabilities. Some of these institutions have a myriad of problems—aging infrastructures, limited access to digital and wireless networking technology, absence of state-of-the-art equipment, low salary structures, small endowments, and limited funds for faculty development and new academic programs for students. While many of these problems exist in other institutions, they appear to be considerably more serious in HBCUs. In addition, those HBCUs damaged by Hurricane Katrina have the added costs in the millions of replacing facilities, research equipment, and rebuilding their infrastructure. This is an issue for Congress because the distribution of federal funding for HBCUs is one of the critical issues facing these institutions. 

HBCUs comprise approximately 2.3% of all institutions of higher education, and enroll approximately 11.6% of all black students attending post-secondary institutions. Approximately 33.0% of the undergraduate degrees in science and engineering earned by blacks were awarded at HBCUs. Some of the most successful programs designed to attract and retain underrepresented minorities into the sciences and in research careers have been initiated at HBCUs. Data compiled by the National Science Foundation (NSF) reveal that in 2006, HBCUs provided the education for approximately 20.1% of blacks earning bachelor degrees in engineering, 35.3% in the physical sciences, 25.3% in computer sciences, 32.8% in mathematics, 32.3% in the biological sciences, 44.9% in agricultural sciences, 15.4% in social sciences, and 21.1% in psychology. 

On March 30, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-152). The act includes, among other things, select provisions of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA). SAFRA provisions are contained in Title II, and make changes to and extend mandatory appropriations for several Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) programs for HBCUs and other minority serving institutions. The legislation continues two-year funding for HBCUs and minority serving institutions as outlined in the HEOA. HBCUs and other minority serving institutions would be funded at $255.0 million for each of the years FY2010 through FY2019. Estimated support would be approximately $1.1 billion over a 5-year period and approximately $2.1 billion over a 10-year period.


Date of Report: May 25, 2010
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: RL34435
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Elementary and Secondary School Teachers: Policy Context, Federal Programs, and ESEA Reauthorization Issues

Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy

Policymaking at the federal level reflects a growing awareness that improving educational outcomes depends greatly upon increasing the quality of classroom instruction. In establishing the student performance standards and accountability provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), legislators recognized that the success of these reforms rests largely on improving teachers' knowledge and skills. Thus, in enacting NCLB, Congress amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to establish a requirement that all teachers be highly qualified and authorized the Title II, Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund to assist schools' efforts to meet this new requirement. 

The NCLB highly qualified teacher requirement has now been the cornerstone of federal teacher policy for nearly a decade. In that time, the requirement has come to be seen by many as a minimum standard for entry into the profession (rather than a goal to which teachers might aspire) and a growing body of research has revealed its underlying credentials to be weakly correlated with student achievement. Meanwhile, congressional interest has begun to shift from a focus on teacher input (i.e., quality) to teacher output (i.e., effectiveness). Most recently, Congress passed provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which required states applying for State Fiscal Stabilization Funds to provide assurances that they will take actions to improve teacher effectiveness. Further, policymakers at all levels are considering how such issues as teacher compensation, licensure or certification, and tenure may relate to teacher performance in the classroom. 

The authorization for ESEA programs expired at the end of FY2008, and the 111th Congress is expected to consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA. This report provides background information for the legislative debates likely to occur as this process unfolds. The report gives a brief overview of the context in which federal teacher policy is situated, describes the evolving federal role in this area and the major federal programs designed to support the quality and effectiveness of teachers, and discuses policy issues that may arise as Congress considers ESEA reauthorization.


Date of Report: June 1, 2010
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R41267
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.