Federal Department of Education
In response to yesterday's post on education and constitutional law, someone asked me if I'd be in favor of eliminating the federal department of education. I was a little shocked that he'd have to ask.
Even if someone isn't swayed by yesterday's post on the constitutional structure of government (because, yes, of course, the federal government can do many things through the spending clause, if the states take the money), there are several other good reasons to eliminate the Dept. of Ed. or drastically reduce its scope and budget.
First, being in the trenches of funding public education in Utah, I don't see what the federal Dept. of Ed. does for states that states can't do for themselves. While we all think we're a little smarter than the average bear, I haven't seen evidence that Congress possesses wisdom superior to state legislatures or school districts. To the contrary, Congress as a whole possesses very little wisdom concerning the important differences that exist in each of the individual states. In education, it would be laughable to argue that one-size-fits-all concepts apply satisfactorily to all the states and subregions of those states. While you might (correctly) argue that No Child Left Behind has raised standards in some states, in others it is a drag on the system. Some times federal ideas work; other times they don't. If the feds take over an area of legislation, we get one shot to get it right. If the states do it, we get 50. If school boards do it, we get lots of chances. States and school boards actively compare notes and receive critiques from citizens and businesses that vote with their feet. As a result, states are better set up to adapt to changing circumstances and new information. I'm not aware of too many people who say they don't like how the U.S. does it, so they're moving elsewhere (at least not too many people we'll miss).
For the second point, I'll ask you to consider freedom of speech. That right importantly suggests that you can possess and express opinions on your government. Does it imply that you should have some realistic opportunity of meaningfully expressing those opinions to a decision-maker or is it enough that you can howl them into the wind? If the school principal is considering an issue, could you track her down to share your thoughts? Of course. How about if the school board makes the decision? A touch harder, right? How about the legislature -- could you sit down and discuss it with the 104 members? Tougher still. How about if Congress decides the issue -- how detailed will your discussions be with the 535 members of Congress? Meaningful freedom of speech is greatly enhanced by local decision-making.
Third, if you want to see the underbelly of special interest politics, the areas around Dept. of Ed. are great places to look. I'm not saying the Dept. of Ed. and its members are bad or the least bit corrupt. Quite to the contrary; I'm sure they are good people who value education and work hard to see it improve. But the Dept. of Ed. packs a lot of muscle and a big fat wallet. That attracts lobbyists and special interests by the thousands -- most of those probably being good people and organizations trying to do good things. But it becomes a place where ideas surface based on power and influence, not necessarily the best thing for the children and the schools. Are state legislatures any better? In my opinion, yes, to a large degree. Are school boards better still? In my opinion, yes. Why? See the paragraph above. Anyone who wants my attention can call me, stop by the house or office, or grab me at the supermarket. Anyone could grab all the school board members in an afternoon. We have to pay attention to individual's concerns.
Fourth, no one or no thing can waste money like the federal government. States come in a distant second. And school boards come in a distant third or somewhere lower on the list. My school board built a new administration building and decided to pay $600,000 extra to do the exterior in sandstone? Whether they should was the source of great and meaningful debate in the community. When the state builds a building, do raging public debates occur over the cost of the exterior? When the federal government builds a building, does anyone even question it, unless it obviously blows millions of dollars -- and, even then, are we going to force the decision-makers to defend the decision in a public meeting? Congressman, come sit in my living room and explain to me why you think my tax dollars should pay for a marble exterior on that federal building in Lockhart, Texas.
I'm far from the trenches of actually delivering the instruction, and maybe teachers and parents want to differ with me on the value the Dept. of Ed. provides the children. I'd love to hear it. I'm sure I could hear volumes from the entrenched interests in D.C. who love their power and influence (and are convinced that only they can do the job right). To me, it would make a lot of sense to eliminate or reduce distant bureaucracy and return the money and control to the local level. If Utah had it's pro-rata share of the money that currently supports DOE bureaucracy and bureaucrats in D.C., to stick that money into the classroom, we could do far better things with it.
Would I want to do away with the Dept. of Ed. or drastically cut its budget and scope? Yes.
Even if someone isn't swayed by yesterday's post on the constitutional structure of government (because, yes, of course, the federal government can do many things through the spending clause, if the states take the money), there are several other good reasons to eliminate the Dept. of Ed. or drastically reduce its scope and budget.
First, being in the trenches of funding public education in Utah, I don't see what the federal Dept. of Ed. does for states that states can't do for themselves. While we all think we're a little smarter than the average bear, I haven't seen evidence that Congress possesses wisdom superior to state legislatures or school districts. To the contrary, Congress as a whole possesses very little wisdom concerning the important differences that exist in each of the individual states. In education, it would be laughable to argue that one-size-fits-all concepts apply satisfactorily to all the states and subregions of those states. While you might (correctly) argue that No Child Left Behind has raised standards in some states, in others it is a drag on the system. Some times federal ideas work; other times they don't. If the feds take over an area of legislation, we get one shot to get it right. If the states do it, we get 50. If school boards do it, we get lots of chances. States and school boards actively compare notes and receive critiques from citizens and businesses that vote with their feet. As a result, states are better set up to adapt to changing circumstances and new information. I'm not aware of too many people who say they don't like how the U.S. does it, so they're moving elsewhere (at least not too many people we'll miss).
For the second point, I'll ask you to consider freedom of speech. That right importantly suggests that you can possess and express opinions on your government. Does it imply that you should have some realistic opportunity of meaningfully expressing those opinions to a decision-maker or is it enough that you can howl them into the wind? If the school principal is considering an issue, could you track her down to share your thoughts? Of course. How about if the school board makes the decision? A touch harder, right? How about the legislature -- could you sit down and discuss it with the 104 members? Tougher still. How about if Congress decides the issue -- how detailed will your discussions be with the 535 members of Congress? Meaningful freedom of speech is greatly enhanced by local decision-making.
Third, if you want to see the underbelly of special interest politics, the areas around Dept. of Ed. are great places to look. I'm not saying the Dept. of Ed. and its members are bad or the least bit corrupt. Quite to the contrary; I'm sure they are good people who value education and work hard to see it improve. But the Dept. of Ed. packs a lot of muscle and a big fat wallet. That attracts lobbyists and special interests by the thousands -- most of those probably being good people and organizations trying to do good things. But it becomes a place where ideas surface based on power and influence, not necessarily the best thing for the children and the schools. Are state legislatures any better? In my opinion, yes, to a large degree. Are school boards better still? In my opinion, yes. Why? See the paragraph above. Anyone who wants my attention can call me, stop by the house or office, or grab me at the supermarket. Anyone could grab all the school board members in an afternoon. We have to pay attention to individual's concerns.
Fourth, no one or no thing can waste money like the federal government. States come in a distant second. And school boards come in a distant third or somewhere lower on the list. My school board built a new administration building and decided to pay $600,000 extra to do the exterior in sandstone? Whether they should was the source of great and meaningful debate in the community. When the state builds a building, do raging public debates occur over the cost of the exterior? When the federal government builds a building, does anyone even question it, unless it obviously blows millions of dollars -- and, even then, are we going to force the decision-makers to defend the decision in a public meeting? Congressman, come sit in my living room and explain to me why you think my tax dollars should pay for a marble exterior on that federal building in Lockhart, Texas.
I'm far from the trenches of actually delivering the instruction, and maybe teachers and parents want to differ with me on the value the Dept. of Ed. provides the children. I'd love to hear it. I'm sure I could hear volumes from the entrenched interests in D.C. who love their power and influence (and are convinced that only they can do the job right). To me, it would make a lot of sense to eliminate or reduce distant bureaucracy and return the money and control to the local level. If Utah had it's pro-rata share of the money that currently supports DOE bureaucracy and bureaucrats in D.C., to stick that money into the classroom, we could do far better things with it.
Would I want to do away with the Dept. of Ed. or drastically cut its budget and scope? Yes.
posted by steve u. at 6/16/2005
Subscribe
2 Comments:
Viva federalism!
Here is a quote from Secretary Spelling's May 2, 2005, editorial, first published in USA Today:
"Utah's Legislature has passed a law that may conflict with NCLB: It wants to continue to receive federal dollars while not following the law -- specifically leaving some children behind."
How unfortunate that the dialogue has degraded to this level. Utahns, of course, want to provide the best educational system possible for their children. There is no desire to leave children behind. It is the substance of legislation, not the title, that matters. While No Child Left Behind has invited us to re-examine what we do, Utahns think they have a better way to go on this issue -- a plan that fits where we are and builds upon existing programs that are working -- and virtually every impacted group in the state strongly agrees. Not only is it constitutionally unfortunate that Congress has made itself the super school board, this exchange is illustrative as to why the federal government should not be in charge of local education issues. The scale is so big and the decision makers so distant that disagreement is something to be quelled and civil dialogue on complex issues is reduced to simplistic sound bites.
<< Home