Iowa school officials said they are skeptical of a statement from White House and Department of Education officials saying states are sitting on unspent federal dollars meant for schools.

Kathi Slaughter, communications specialist for the Iowa Department of Education, said there was no truth to the statement made last week in an Associated Press article.

Slaughter said states cannot use their money for a number of reasons, the first of which is timing. Schools receive budgets and must spend allocated funds before they are reimbursed.

Gov. Tom Vilsack released a possible budget for Iowa Monday showing no additional revenue.

The budget would reduce funding per pupil by $139, cut 3,900 teachers, require larger class sizes and eliminate important community college classes, such as nursing.

State Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, said he doesn’t know where the Bush administration got the idea that states were sitting on education money, after looking at Vilsack’s budget.

“I’m looking at a crisis here on my desk,” Quirmbach said.

Gary Steinke, assistant to ISU President Gregory Geoffroy and director of governmental relations, said he isn’t sure what the Bush administration was talking about.

“I don’t know that ISU has any money unspent, but I would surely doubt it,” Steinke said.

Last year, Congress did not finish an appropriations bill to allocate money to states for education spending until February, and President Bush did not sign the bill until mid-February, Steinke said.

The February signing was more than four months later than the appropriations bill deadline of Oct. 1, and the delay hurt Iowa State’s ability to spend its entire allocation.

Iowa State has until the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 to spend its money.

Iowa Department of Education Director Ted Stilwill said he is also confused by the Bush administration’s statements. Stilwill wrote an e-mail to U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige, responding to the Department of Education’s assertion that Iowa has $39 million in unspent education funds dating back to the year 2000.

“The implication that we have let huge sums of federal money languish — is inaccurate and unfair,” Stilwill wrote.

States have 27 months to spend their money. However, each year, Congress is often months late in passing the budget, he said.

“The [U.S. Department of Education] must know that the distribution of federal funds is not always timely — and consequently, because this funding is already obligated to schools, it is not accessible to cover the additional costs we are incurring related to the No Child Left Behind Act,” Stilwill wrote.

The 2002 No Child Left Behind law requires new mandates on schools, such as higher-qualified teachers in core classes, expanded testing and reports on student performance.

Critics of the law and the Bush administration said the law is highly underfunded for the number of mandates it requires.

Quirmbach said to achieve higher standards in schools, more investments need to be made, in areas such as tutors and smaller class sizes.

Iowa has been trying but is still struggling, Quirmbach said.

“They tell us to do this, but not to use any more money.” he said.

“Higher standards requires a higher level of efficiency and over time Iowa has done well doing an efficient job.”

Iowa’s efficiency at keeping spending low is not always easy, Quirmbach said. He said he wished schools had more money, but he does not know of any unspent funds.

“You can’t get blood out of a turnip,” he said. “We’ve been tapping into every reserve and are near down to the bottom.”