President Barack Obama’s budget proposal for next year calls for funding increases for education, with early childhood programs, teacher development and training initiatives, and a push for free community college tuition among the highlights.

The president is asking for $71 billion in discretionary funding for the U.S. Department of Education – a 5.4 percent increase over current funding, according to budget information released Monday. The package was part of Obama’s overall $4 trillion budget proposal for 2016.

Among the highlights:

  • $750 million – a $500 million increase – to expand the Preschool Development Grants program, which helps increase preschool options for children from low- and moderate-income families. The president is also calling for $75 billion over the next 10 years for his Preschool for All proposal, to expand preschool offerings to 4-year-olds.
  • $5 billion over the next five years for a “Teaching for Tomorrow” program to support training and recruitment of new teachers, and professional development for current teachers.
  • $60.3 billion to offer two years of free community college to students making steady progress toward a degree.
  • $200 million for a new “American Technical Training Fund” to promote job training programs in high-demand fields.
  • $125 million for a new competitive grant program to “redesign” high school, especially for programs that focus on science, engineering and math instruction.

Additional information on the budget proposal is available from the White House here. Read Education Week’s analysis here.

Share Article

Comments (11)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * *

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. Michael Kurtz 4 years ago4 years ago

    It seems to me that putting the emphasis on Universal Preschool for four year olds is a short sited idea. A mixed delivery system from birth, available to all children, is the answer.

    Wasn’t the same reason used for Kindergartens? Children are not ready for school. Maybe the Waldorf system is something to look at. Don’t start the academics till 3rd grade.

  2. Don 4 years ago4 years ago

    If you choose to go to college go to a 2 year institution – not 4 years. It’s free. Whooppee! Serious students who applied themselves in high school get nothing, but if were a screw up, it’s free. Well, except for everyone who has to pay for Obama’s form of freedom. Let freedom reign!

  3. Don 4 years ago4 years ago

    Only $500 million more for pre-school? What a deal! It’s less than the $535M in federal dollars he flushed to enrich his donor friends at Solindra.

    Just say no to his socialist ideology in which everyone who makes money pays taxes AND the cost for services and those that don’t get everything for free. Just like the collectively bargained teacher salary increases that come from the base grant only, leaving the SC grants intact.

    Replies

    • Tom 4 years ago4 years ago

      Apparently Obama’s proposed budget is 300 pages and full of proposals to increase taxes from a wide variety of sources. Let’s hope the new Congress will limit or eliminate much or all of it. The economically illiterate White House does not understand that the way to increase tax revenues is to increase economic activity. Raising taxes does the opposite.

      Want to dispute that Gary? Bring it…

        • Don 4 years ago4 years ago

          El, there's always two sides of the story. You kind of have to wonder how Brownback got reelected if it is as simple as his detractors want us to believe. Cutting taxes is the worst nightmare of Democrats who derive their support by raising taxes and using the proceeds to pay off the left -wing voters. This article explains how a number of forces combined to offset short term benefits of the Brownback tax cuts: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/10/08/democrats-wrongly-blame-kansas-gov-brownbacks-tax-cuts-for-budget-issues You … Read More

          El, there’s always two sides of the story.

          You kind of have to wonder how Brownback got reelected if it is as simple as his detractors want us to believe. Cutting taxes is the worst nightmare of Democrats who derive their support by raising taxes and using the proceeds to pay off the left -wing voters.

          This article explains how a number of forces combined to offset short term benefits of the Brownback tax cuts:

          http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/10/08/democrats-wrongly-blame-kansas-gov-brownbacks-tax-cuts-for-budget-issues

          You can’t look at Kansas in a vacuum, especially when you look at the outsize effect the federal government has on tax revenue.

          Successful companies create real profit and jobs. The Feds print fake dollars deflating the value of real earned dollars. The Feds profits only through the success of the private sector. If you keep sucking up the water, eventually the well dries up the game is over.

          • navigio 4 years ago4 years ago

            All money is fake. And there are always just two stories. The 'sides' invariably are incorrectly assumed to be talking about the same thing. Classic political mislead. The contention was that lower taxes increase revenue. One story showed that didn't happen. The 'counter' focused on deficit (which is a function of both sides of the balance sheet, ie a different question) and even talked about all sorts of benefits, none of which was increased tax revenue. … Read More

            All money is fake.
            And there are always just two stories. The ‘sides’ invariably are incorrectly assumed to be talking about the same thing. Classic political mislead.
            The contention was that lower taxes increase revenue. One story showed that didn’t happen. The ‘counter’ focused on deficit (which is a function of both sides of the balance sheet, ie a different question) and even talked about all sorts of benefits, none of which was increased tax revenue.
            Finally, brownbacks goal is to eliminate income tax entirely. It’s a bit absurd to try to argue that would increase income tax revenues.

            • Tom 4 years ago4 years ago

              Nav, There are more taxes than just income taxes. Increasing economic activity increases jobs, sales taxes, demand and housing prices (property taxes), generates more business taxes, etc etc. Given that, increases taxes has the opposite affect. The CBO just completed a 30 year study that demonstrates this, and besides this study, it just makes sense.

            • navigio 4 years ago4 years ago

              So you were arguing that to raise tax revenue you'd lower income tax rates but raise others? Which ones in particular? The cbo-style studies rarely argue for a specific approach (raising or lowering rates in particular) rather they generally try to identify a point of greatest return. That point may be above or below the current rate, thus the 'conclusion' may be either to lower or to raise taxes depending on how that compares with … Read More

              So you were arguing that to raise tax revenue you’d lower income tax rates but raise others? Which ones in particular?
              The cbo-style studies rarely argue for a specific approach (raising or lowering rates in particular) rather they generally try to identify a point of greatest return. That point may be above or below the current rate, thus the ‘conclusion’ may be either to lower or to raise taxes depending on how that compares with the current rate. For example, just a couple years ago the cbo concluded that the ideal capital gains tax rate was a few points above the then current value.
              I never bothered to question whether lowering taxes does most of those things, rather I merely pointed out that it was never argued to increase revenue in that counter article.
              Anyway, if the goal truly is to maximize tax revenue, I’m sure even democrats would jump on that bandwagon. The problem is, that’s rarely the true goal.

      • Gary Ravani 4 years ago4 years ago

        Sure. Take a look at economic activity during the Clinton Presidency. He raised taxes to cries from the usual sources about crushing the economy and we haven't seen such an economic boom time in this century or last. On the other hand W infamously gave huge tax break to all the "job creators' (aka,the wealthy, or as W called them "my base") which helped create circumstances where hoards of unused cash incentivized … Read More

        Sure.

        Take a look at economic activity during the Clinton Presidency. He raised taxes to cries from the usual sources about crushing the economy and we haven’t seen such an economic boom time in this century or last. On the other hand W infamously gave huge tax break to all the “job creators’ (aka,the wealthy, or as W called them “my base”) which helped create circumstances where hoards of unused cash incentivized reckless investments. That along with an unwillingness to regulate the financial sector, to the extent possible after the demise of Glass-Steagle, created the greatest economic crash since the 1930s.

        Hows that?

        • Don 4 years ago4 years ago

          There not much point in this sort of debate on Ed Source, IMO.

          So I only have one more word to say – Europe.