- The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 6, 2004

Observation and common sense have told me for years there is no relationship between money spent on education and student achievement. Now a new study to be released today by the Cato Institute provides irrefutable facts that lead to the same conclusion.

Neal McCluskey, an education policy analyst for Cato, notes that, while federal spending on education has ballooned from about $25 billion in 1965 (adjusted for inflation) to more than $108 billion in 2002, the promise of improved classroom performance and grades remains flat. “Math and reading scores have stagnated,” says Mr. McCluskey, “graduation rates have flatlined, and researchers have shown several billion-dollar federal programs to be failures.”

Will that awaken politicians to cut these failed programs and return education authority to the states? Not in an election year, it won’t, because politicians believe education is an issue that gets them votes, even though, as the Cato study shows, they have failed miserably to improve it.

More than 36 federal departments and organizations run major education programs, according to the Education Department Statistics. What are they doing with the money if so much of it fails to produce the promised results? Why is a school system that dates as far back as the Massachusetts Colony’s 1647 Old Deluder Satan Act — which established the first compulsory and partially public education (and was intended to ensure that all members of the Colony were sufficiently literate to read the Bible, enabling them to “fend off the inducements of Satan”) — turning out so many functional illiterates who so willingly give in to all sorts of modern temptations?

Mostly, it is because state and local authority over education has been gradually usurped by the federal government, which has no constitutional authority to run or dictate to local schools. But as Washington has gradually claimed more power over education, states have less power and have been forced to succumb to increasing federal regulation in exchange for federal dollars taken from its citizens in the first place.

The top six departments engaged in education spending and the amounts they spent in current dollars in 1965 and 2002 are as follows: Health and Human Services ($1billion in ‘65; $22.9 billion in ‘02); Education ($1 billion in ‘65; $46 billion in ‘02; Agriculture ($768 million in ‘65, $11 billion in ‘02); Defense ($587 million in ‘65; $4.7 billion in ‘02); Energy ($442.4 million in ‘65; $3. billion in ‘02); and Labor ($230 million in ‘65; $6.4 billion in ‘02). Even after programs and spending had shown lack of results, only a very few were removed in the last 39 years.

It’s the “one-size-fits-all, we-know-what’s-best-for-you-mentality” of Washington that has some states complaining about the “No Child Left Behind” mandate that demands states squeeze students through standardized tests and achievement models into a mold designed by politicians and administered by bureaucrats. When these strategies fail, the government mostly does not end or change them. It throws more money at them.

One of the justifications for this socialistic redistribution of education money is the egalitarian objective of assuring the poor get their fair share and supposedly improve their chances of escaping poverty. But the Cato study again proves the failure of this thinking. Statistics show no correlation between the amounts of education money spent and a decline in the poverty levels in individual states.

As the Cato study concludes, the federal government should drop out of education and return the money and power for instructing children to the state and individual communities. Education achievement was better when it was practiced in the little red schoolhouse and didn’t come as it does today from the big White House and its Cabinet agencies. The billions wasted on education since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society has been a financial and educational disaster, not to mention a violation of the Constitution.

Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide