President George W. Bush, gave us No Child Left Behind and to ensure that its goals were met, the U.S. Department of Education's budget was increased from $14 billion to $60 billion.
His goal was to ensure that American children would be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Now 37 states are asking to be exempted from meeting that goal. President Obama believes the law is so flawed that he has invited the states to obtain waivers. States are required to submit their own plans to show how they will meet the law's requirements.
If you go to the Education Department website, it states that it "administers a budget of $69.9 billion in discretionary appropriations. It also states that "education in America is primarily a State and local responsibility."
The department has about 5,000 employees. Its mission is: "to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access." To that end, the primary functions of the department are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on U.S. schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."
President Obama has called upon Congress to pass the American Jobs Act to provide an additional
-- $30 billion to support teachers' jobs
-- $25 billion to upgrade existing public school
-- $5 billion to modernize community colleges
But where does Congress get the money to send to the states in support of education? And where does the federal government get the power to be involved in education at all? You can search the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) for the rest of your life and you won't find any express grant of power to Congress to deal with "education."
Americans who favor national power would argue that Congress has power to make laws to fund and regulate education either (a) under its power to "lay and collect taxes ... to ... provide for ... the general welfare," or (b) under its power to "regulate commerce."
Those who believe education is a power reserved to the states or the people under the 10th Amendment believe federal government intrusion in education is an unconstitutional usurpation of power. President Reagan in his 1982 State of the Union called for "dismantling" the education department. The 1996 GOP platform stated, "The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula ... This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools."
In the early day, the federal government was not in the business of making laws or providing funds for education. Until the Civil War, education was entirely left to states, religious organizations and people. A timeline, prepared by the Cato Institute, shows how long it took for Congress to discover that it had power to become involved in education.
-- 1862: The Morrill Act provides grants of land to the states, which may be sold and the proceeds used to fund colleges that focus on agricultural and mechanical studies.
-- 1867: Congress appropriates $15,000, and creates of a Department of Education, with four employees to act as a clearing house of data for educators and policy makers.
-- 1868: After a bitter fight over federal encroachment in education, Congress downgrades the new department to an Office of Education within the Department of Interior. Education did not regain its separate departmental status until 1979.
-- 1890: A second Morrill Act empowers the Office of Education to provide regular funding of the land-grant colleges.
-- 1907: The Morrill Acts are amended to add federal funding for vocational education.
-- 1911: The State Marine School Act authorizes funding of nautical schools in 11 specified cities.
-- 1917: The Smith-Hughes Act funds vocational schools. The Act imposes a range of detailed federal rules on recipient institutions.
--1930s: The New Deal funds an array of educational activities including school construction and repairs, the hiring of teachers, loans to school districts, and grants to rural schools. These programs create precedents for later permanent education subsidies.
Quite apart from constitutional arguments, however, there is a more fundamental question: Why do we even need Washington involved in education? Each year, 70 billion tax dollars are siphoned out of the state and sent to Washington to fund the education department and its activities. Now the president wants to take more.
Why not abolish the department, and let the states keep that $70 billion? Why are state and/or local bureaucrats less able to manage tax dollar than federal bureaucrats?
Are the states incompetent to "promote student achievement?" If the states are left with the tax dollars flowing to Washington, couldn't the states provide Pell-like grants, and financial aid? Are the states unable to prepare students for "global competitiveness?"
Has federal involvement made things better?
If given the same money and left to their own device, why are the states less able to "foster educational excellence" than bureaucrats in the education department?
Are states wanting in their capacity to "establish policy" for education? Are the states inferior at "collecting data" to better their schools?
Can't the state's and the federal and state courts enforce "equal access" and "civil rights" in the schools in the absence of the department?
So, Congress passed No Child Left Behind to solve a problem. Then when the law turns out to be a $46 billion bust, we grant three-fourths of the states waivers and tell them to come up with their own plans.
Was this a waste of $46 billion?
Indeed, is the education department a waste of $70 billion?
Don't forget, in 1867 the education department had four employees; it now has 5,000.
If you're a family of four, you're paying $900 a year for this. Would that money be better spent on local school? On your own family?
Posted Online: Oct. 25, 2011, 3:07 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment