I Read the President’s FY25 Budget Proposal So You Don’t Have to!
By Jonathan Plucker
The hoopla surrounding the annual proposal for the federal budget, released in the late winter each year, makes for an odd spectacle. It is truly a proposal, and the eventual federal budget passed by Congress and signed into law by the President often bears little resemblance to the initial desires of the White House. This isn’t surprising in an era of divided government, but even when one party controls both the executive and legislative branches, differing priorities among policymakers often result in unexpected budget decisions. Complicating things further, most of the innovations occur in the margins, relatively small additions or eliminations that even political budget junkies can easily miss.
Nonetheless, the proposal is an important document. It provides clear signals about an administration’s current priorities, and how it expects programs to develop in the future. Being familiar with budget proposals provides important information to advocates as they work with their representatives and the executive branch to improve services for advanced learners.
But let’s face it, the federal budget isn’t exactly a fun read. So I read it for you.
President Biden’s budget for FY25 (beginning October 1) contains no big surprises, either positive or negative. It proposes continuing to fund the Javits Act at the FY23 and FY24 level of $16.5 million. As I’ve noted elsewhere, this amount is very small given the benefits of advanced education. But Javits grants provide an important foundation for the field—we’re fortunate to have them!
The recent success of Javits funding in the federal budget is due to a combination of support from the President and from several members of Congress in both parties, most notably Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in the Senate and Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-CT) in her past role as chair and current position as ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. I should also note that grassroots advocates, many from the New Jersey Association for Gifted Children, have pushed hard in recent years to maintain and expand that Congressional support, without which the program would likely have withered away.
Other parts of the budget proposal are disappointing. In an age where economic competitiveness, the exponential growth of AI, and global tensions make academic excellence more important than ever before, I was initially pleased to see the Administration’s emphasis on acceleration and enrichment in the proposal and related press releases. But on closer inspection, those initiatives will focus tightly on remediation and getting students up to grade-level learning. I’m not arguing against the need for resources to get students to attend school and have access to high-quality tutoring, afterschool, and summer programs, which all make sense in this post-pandemic age. But no one should mistake the use of advanced education terminology as an actual emphasis on advanced learning in these budget proposals.
But again, credit where it’s due: The budget proposal sends a strong message of the Administration’s continued commitment to the Javits Program, which was proposed for elimination by the House majority for FY24 and by the previous administration in FY20 and FY21.
I finished my thinking about the budget proposal with two takeaways. First and foremost, the Javits program is well-positioned to continue in this next fiscal cycle. Advocates need to redouble their efforts to contact their legislators and request their support for the program. Not only will this benefit the Javits program, it provides a solid foundation on which to build future efforts to expand federal support for academic excellence.
Second, we have to think more about the tendency of policymakers and educators to adopt language from advanced education to repackage remediation. This phenomenon seems to be on the rise, and I worry that it subtly erodes support for advanced programs. If you can point to your support for an “accelerated learning” program that primarily addresses chronic absenteeism and tutoring, are you then less likely to support a bill or budget item that actually addresses accelerated learning? I fear the answer may be yes.
Jonathan Plucker is a professor of education and director of the education policy program at the Johns Hopkins School of Education. Full disclosure: He is currently PI of two Javits grants and has consulted with previous and current recipients on their projects.
