About Me - Milton Laene Araujo

My photo
Lake Worth, Florida, United States
My name is Milton and I am a reader. I love to feed my mind with what if’s?, through stories.

7/09/13

Department of Education in the U.S and a viable solution


Education in The Unites States and a Viable Solution to various costs

 

 

The U.S. Department of Education was created in 1980.

It started from a discretionary budget of $11.7 billion in 1980 to a discretionary request of $77.4 billion in FY 2012.

Its mission is to promote student achievement through a variety of means, including assistance directly to both students and schools.

 

·          The Department spends around $9.3 billion in mandatory funds and uses about $113 billion in public debt to fund federal direct student loans.

·          The Department has at least 230 programs

·         The Department employed 4,390 full time employees in FY 2011 in addition to many contractors.

·         The Department uses $200 billion in taxpayer resources, directed to federal education efforts.

 

Decisions must be made about which programs are better suited for state and local governments, or even the private sector, and what can be afforded by the federal government.

 

Higher education point of view - The Federal Direct Loan Program is unaffordable since Congress mandated all federal student loans be financed with public debt and issued through the Direct Loan program, rather than issued privately with a federal backstop. This way, the government leveraged private sector capital to provide federal student loans with a capped borrower interest rate, taxpayer-funded subsidies to offset the cap, and a federal guarantee against default. This change is very costly. Congress altered the manner in which these loans are recorded in the federal ledger. Because the loans are supposed to be paid back with interest, they are considered ―assets‖ the government assumes it will one day collect. While technically this is the case, the ever-increasing costs of college means federal borrowing to fund student loans climbs higher each year, thereby outstripping repayments to the government on an annual basis.

 

In fact, for all credit programs run by the government, including direct student loans, CBO notes, ―Each year, the amount of loans disbursed will generally be larger than the amount of repayments and interest collected. Taxpayers will not see the loan amount returned to the Treasury.

 

In addition to federal student loans, the government operates dozens of programs to assist postsecondary institutions and their students. Pell Grant program... the amount of Pell Grant funding increased the cost of tuition in all secondary education institutions in near equal measure. The discretionary Pell Grant has been demonstrated to be effective while not leading to increased tuition at institutions of higher education.  Therefore this program needs to be reformed to contain costs and retain the elements of the program that ensure effective targeting of federal dollars.

 

It is a fact that:

·         The program needs to be reformed to contain costs and retain the elements of the program that ensure effective targeting of federal dollars.

·         Federal student aid costs continue to skyrocket.

·         Federal student aid has contributed to the increasing costs of college

·         When financial aid programs make more money available to schools, this money is spent.

·         This results in more costly higher education, which has negative implications for access and affordability.

 

To truly improve postsecondary education, curb college costs and relieve pressure on the federal budget, the government can reduce federal student aid resources without harming those aspiring to, or already attending, a four-year college.  

 

A Viable Solution would be:

 

·         Student loans should be made exclusively by private lending institutions without federal debt issuance or federal subsidy.

·         The Government should end the Direct and Perkins loan programs

·         Eliminate all remaining federal postsecondary programs except for the discretionary Pell Grant program and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants. (Grants for people involved in the war).

 
 

**********

 

Elementary and Secondary Education point of view - Every individual is unique and educational approaches do not come in one-size-fits-all. Limiting the federal role in this arena, and emphasizing local involvement, will help ensure our diverse populations receive an education tailored to their needs, interests and abilities. Many well-meaning federal programs do more harm than good. It is hard for school Administrators to orient their goals to a program created far from where they live, often by people who may not have considered their particular needs.

 

It is a fact that:

 

·         Federal Government help counts to less than 10% of the entire cost. Because the federal government provides such a small percentage of our nation‘s total education spending, it does not need to be the way it is now.

 

·         State and local school districts spend an inordinate amount of time complying with rules under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). With annual paperwork burden.

 

·         States and school districts work 7.8 million hours each year collecting and disseminating information required under Title I of federal education law. Those hours cost more than $235 million.

 

·         And while federal education funding has continued to increase in recent decades, results have lagged behind. Per-pupil federal spending at the K-12 level, after accounting for inflation, has more than doubled since 1970. Despite these enormous investments, outcomes have not improved, and the educational system has found itself under greater strain. For example, long-term scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading, math and science have seen minimal improvement and in most areas remain relatively stagnant. Worse still, even our most basic measurement of success, graduation, shows the problem is getting worse, not better. In the last 100 years, the year with the highest graduation rate was 1969, eleven years before the creation of the Department of Education. Whereas in that year graduation peaked at 77 percent, rates slowly dropped to 68.8 percent in 2007.

 

·         Stringent federal testing requirements may even be responsible for worsening dropout rates in the U.S.A.

 

·         The state‘s high-stakes accountability system has a direct impact on the severity of the dropout problem,‖ and African American and Latino children were at risk of ―being pushed out of their schools so the school ratings can show measurable improvement.

 

·         While some policymakers have been successful in creating the message that increased funding and additional programs can serve as an elixir to the significant shortcomings in our education system, our nation‘s students have been cheated by both an ineffective federal bureaucracy and an uncertain future of burdensome debt.

 

·         If the answer were simply to provide more funding, the results from the enormous financial contributions we have made to date would be evident. As it stands, concentrating funding in a single city, Washington, D.C., has done little to improve test scores, increase graduation or achieve our nation‘s educational goals.

 

A Viable Solution would be:

 

·         Funding for all elementary and secondary programs should be combined into a single funding stream and reduced by 50 percent.

·         The remaining federal assistance should be given to states, which would retain complete authority of this funding.

·         The assistance should be divided among states based on a percentage of school-aged children, where state and local education departments can direct funding toward their own priorities and goals.

·         This system will allow states to design individualized education plans to fit their unique education needs and goals.

·         In the place of a single, disconnected federal agency, there will be 50 states incubating educational innovations, with an exponentially greater chance of discovering the best practices that can be used as design models by other states.

 

·         consolidating the following programs:

 

·          Title I, A - Grants to LEAs

·          School Improvement Grants

·          Early Reading First

·          Striving Readers

·          Reading First

·          Even Start

·          School Libraries

·          Migrant Education

·          Neglected and Delinquent

·          Comprehensive School Reform

·          Title I Evaluation (1501/1503)

·          High School Graduation

·          Impact Aid

·          Improving Teacher Quality State Grants

·          Math and Science Partnerships

·          Educational Technology

·          21st Century After School

·          Gifted and Talented

·          Foreign Language Assistance

·          State Assessments

·          Homeless Education

·          Native Hawaiian Education

·          Alaska Native Education

·          Rural Education

·          Indian Education

·          Teacher Incentive Fund

·          Troops to Teachers

·          Transition to Teaching

·          National Writing Project

·          Teaching American History

·          Academies for American History and Civics

·          School Leadership

·          Advanced Credentialing

·          Charter Schools

·          Voluntary Public School Choice

·          Magnet Schools

·          Advanced Placement

·          Close Up Fellowships

·          Ready-to-Learn TV

·          FIE Programs of National Significance

·          Reading Is Fundamental

·          Ready to Teach

·          Historic Whaling and Trading Partners

·          Excellence in Economic Education

·          Mental Health Integration in Schools

·          Foundations for Learning

·          Arts in Education

·          Parental Information and Resource Centers

·          Women's Educational Equity

·          Promise Neighborhoods

·          Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants

·          Safe and Drug-Free Schools National Activities

·          Alcohol Abuse Reduction

·          Mentoring Program

·          Character Education

·          Elementary and Secondary School Counseling

·          Physical Education

·          Civic Ed - We the People

·          Civic Ed-Cooperative Education Exchange

·          Title III - English Language Proficiency

·          Smaller Learning Communities

·          Race to the Top

·          Investing for Innovation

·          Office of Special Education and Rehab Services State Grants

·          Office of Special Education and Rehab Services State Grants National Activities

·          Special Olympics education programs

·          Vocational Rehab State Grants

·          Vocational Rehab Grants to Indians

·          Client assistance State grants

·          Rehab Services and Disability Research Training

·          Demonstration and training programs

·          Migrant and seasonal farm workers

·          Recreational programs

·          Protection and advocacy of individual rights

·          Projects with industry

·          Supported employment State grants

·          Independent Living State grants

·          Independent Living Centers

·          Independent Living Services for older blind individuals

·          Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults

·          National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

·          Assistive technology programs choice

·              Career and technical education (Carl D. Perkins CTEA)

·          Adult Education

·          Transition for incarcerated individuals

·          Head Start/Early Head Start (Transfer from HHS and Consolidate)

·          Bureau of Indian Education (Transferred from Interior)

 

 

In Summary, consolidating overlapping programs can actually improve efficiency while reducing costs. Duplication within the federal government is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars every year. This fragmentation can create difficulties for people in accessing services as well as administrative burdens for providers who must navigate various application requirements―The lack of coordination caused by duplication poses a ―barrier to the delivery of services to those in need. The federal government has become so large, it is impossible to grasp its true size and scope or to pay for its costs. Nearly every corner of the federal government is rife with duplication, mismanagement, and special interest carve outs. Each is protected by an entrenched bureaucracy, a well-financed lobbying group, an active and organized constituency, and entrenched politicians, which time and again align to best any efforts to reform, cut, or eliminate government waste.

Most of our excesses are the result of decades of Congress overstepping the limited powers granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. Government is so vast, complicated, and protected by special interests, it has become nearly impossible for even most lawmakers to navigate.

 

As a result, overly simplistic solutions that will not solve the problem are being proposed, such as ―capping‖ spending at unsustainable levels, reforms to the budget process that cannot guarantee spending reductions, raising taxes on millionaires, or increasing the government‘s borrowing authority. Let’s start by eliminating special interest subsidies, reducing overhead costs, demanding results, and setting priorities.

 

Milton Laene Araujo

 
 
 
Most data taken from various sites including
 Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables 5.4, ―Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency: 1976-2017,‖ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
U.S. Department of Education FY 2012 budget request, ―Salaries and Expenses Overview,‖ http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget12/justifications/y-seoverview.pdf, accessed