.jpg)
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
