creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Mona Charen
Mona Charen
25 May 2012
Obama's Education Hypocrisy -- Again

    If you were a child in the District of Columbia school system (51st in state rankings for … Read More.

22 May 2012
Is Your 5-Year-Old Transgender?

A 5-year-old child with large dark eyes, full lips and a button nose stares out from the front page of the … Read More.

17 May 2012
Obama, Barnard and Women

The president dropped by Barnard College (my alma mater) this week to deliver the commencement address. It wasn'… Read More.

Dangerous Radical

Share Comment

Newly minted Nevada senate candidate Sharron Angle is a kook. That's what Sen. Harry Reid's people are telling reporters. ABC, CNN, and other outlets seem to agree, noting that Mrs. Angle wants to shutter the federal Department of Education, get the U.S. out of the U.N., phase out Social Security, and eliminate the IRS.

We haven't yet heard her explanations of these positions — many of which can be justified in the proper context. It's certainly possible that she is a little eccentric (that prison massage program doesn't pass the smell test). But this much is certain: It is not kooky to favor the elimination of the Department of Education. That this proposal is routinely labeled "extremist" is a reminder of the one-way ratchet that operates in government. Enshrine something in a federal agency and it becomes sacrosanct. Democrats cheerlead for federal programs because they are the party of government, and Republicans quietly go along because they're afraid.

But if Republicans know how to argue for smaller government — as Gov. Chris Christie is demonstrating in New Jersey — they need not be intimidated. There are hundreds of federal programs that could be eliminated tomorrow with only the happiest consequences for the nation. And yes, the whole Department of Education could be scrapped. It vacuums up money and produces ... what exactly?

As recently as 1996, the Republican Party platform declared that "The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education." Ah, bright hopes of youth.

The Department of Education was created as a straight political payoff to the teacher's unions by President Jimmy Carter (in return for their 1976 endorsement). According to the National Center for Education Statistics, DE's original budget, in 1980, was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) and it employed 450 people. By 2000, it had increased to $34.1 billion, and by 2007, more than doubled to $73 billion. The budget request for fiscal 2011 is $77.8 billion, and the department employs 4,800.

All of this spending has done nothing to improve American education.

Between 1973 and 2004, a period in which federal spending on education more than quadrupled, mathematics scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress rose just one percent for American 17-year-olds. Between 1971 and 2004, reading scores remained completely flat.

Comparing educational achievement with per pupil spending among states also calls into question the value of increasing expenditures. While high-spending Massachusetts had the nation's highest proficiency scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, low-spending Idaho did very well, too. South Dakota ranks 42nd in per pupil expenditures but eighth in math performance and ninth in reading. The District of Columbia, meanwhile, with the nation's highest per pupil expenditures ($15,511 in 2007), scores dead last in achievement.

Like the WIC program that was originally aimed at low-income pregnant and nursing women and babies but which has expanded to cover 50 percent of American infants, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was designed to aid low income and minority populations in 1965, but has since morphed into the No Child Left Behind Law that affects every student in the country.

The Education Department has done more than waste money. Busy bureaucrats have created reams of paperwork for teachers and administrators, pushed dubious curricula like bilingual education, and adopted manifold extra-educational missions. The department's website lists hundreds of programs that bear little to no relation to schooling, including the "Spinal Cord Injuries Model Systems Program," "Small Business Innovation Research Program," "Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights," "Predominantly Black Institutions Program," "Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners," "Institute for International Public Policy," "Grants to States to Improve Management of Drug and Violence Prevention Programs," "Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse," and "Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program," to name just a handful. No one checks. There is no accountability. There are no consequences for failure, except perhaps, requests for even greater funding next year.

The Department of Education is a great burbling vat of waste and it is not extremist to say so.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
I think it is interesting to see conservatives focusing their criticism on the department of education and social welfare programs. They say that in order to balance the budget we need sound fiscal policy and I agree. The only problem with their position is they are ignoring the elephant in the room, the military industrial complex. The department of education's current budget is 77.8 billion, the militaries budget is around 660 billion a year. Once we draw down in Iraq and Afghanistan there is no real reason why we can't remove a 100 billion from that budget and still maintain our military effectiveness. We bemoan bridges to nowhere, but the reality is, what is the point of mass producing 500 million dollar stealth fighter jets to combat an enemy that lives in caves and is armed with hand help weapons? If the conservatives are serious about fiscal responsibility, then they need to correct this omission. Otherwise they are simply talking out of the other side of their face and covering a, ideological social agenda under the cover of fiscal policy.
Comment: #1
Posted by: evan
Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:47 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Mona Charen
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

17 Mar 2009 What Was I Going To Say?

3 Apr 2012 If Obama Had a Son

31 May 2011 What Has Become of the Spirit of Tahrir Square?