February 8, 2000
We all remember the teacher we had in high school who warned us never to assume, because to do so makes an . . . well, I think we all remember the ending to that old aphorism. Unfortunately, recent history suggests that the politicians in Washington have forgotten that valuable adage. For whenever education policy is debated, lawmakers automatically assume the answer to the problem is more federal tax dollars. A perfect example of this was on display during President Clinton's final State of the Union speech. During his address to the nation, the President proposed more than $8.5 billion in new federal education spending.1 In the Republican response, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) promised to increase federal spending for elementary and secondary education while bragging that last year Republicans had spent $500 million more on education than the President had requested.2
This false assumption has apparently embarrassed no one, but has cost taxpayers billions and done little or nothing to improve our educational system. In fact, when examined carefully the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that while spending has consistently increased, test scores, graduation rates and almost all measurable indicators of education in America have fallen. Unfortunately, Washington's efforts to convince Americans to believe the big lie (more spending equals better schools) have largely been successful.
Advocates of higher spending might not be so successful, however, if more Americans were aware just how drastic the increase in federal education outlays has been since the mid-1960's. For instance, between 1960 and 1990, spending on elementary and secondary education increased from $50 billion to nearly $190 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. During the same period, per-student spending more than tripled -- growing from $1,454 to $4,622.3 Between 1973 and 1993, public school spending increased by 47 percent while per pupil spending increased by 62 percent. At the same time, the total number of teachers increased by 17 percent. Even more incredibly, non-teaching positions grew by 40 percent.4 Overall, between 1965 and 1999, the federal government spent $466 billion on education in discretionary spending alone (billions more have been spent on several ambiguous mandatory educational programs).5
Source: Center for the Study of American Business, "The Three 'Ps' of American Education: Performance, Productivity, Privatization" by Richard K. Vedder
In fact, the record clearly suggests that the more Washington bureaucrats are involved in education policy, the greater the spending. For example, in the decade prior to the establishment of the Department of Education, non-defense/non-education spending grew 29 percent faster than education spending. In the period since the establishment of the Department in 1979, education spending has grown 31 percent faster than non-defense/non-education spending -- a complete reversal.6
Clearly, government spending on education has been growing at an exponential rate and has reached gigantic proportions. Unfortunately for Americans, their return on this "investment" has been anemic at best. For instance, between 1960 and 1990, student performance on the SATs actually declined.7 Even if a student's SAT scores are good enough to get him or her into college, there is a good chance they will not possess the skills to stay there very long. The United States has one of the highest university dropout rates in the industrialized world -- 37 percent.8
Even those students who try to stay in high school do not fare well when compared with the rest of the world. Of the 29 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only Mexico had a lower high school graduation rate, with America graduating less than three-quarters of its students.9 At the Third International Science and Mathematics Study, American students were outperformed by students from every country but Cyprus and South Africa.10
Clearly, continued increases in federal spending on education have not had the desired effect. This is an important lesson to learn, as Washington is poised to re-authorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and related legislation. Created in 1965, ESEA encompasses the majority of federal educational spending.
Instead of debating how much more to spend on ESEA, or what minor alterations will reverse more than three decades of failures, Congress should question the role of the federal government in education. From the founding of our nation until quite recently, education was correctly considered the purview of states and localities. Federal involvement in education is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution and the 10th Amendment specifically states that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Federal education policy over the past 40 years has been a complete failure. Washington should admit as much and gracefully bow out of education policy. This would eliminate a cash-sucking layer of bureaucracy and give individual states and localities the freedom to reform their schools. Assuming Congress can muster the courage to relinquish some of its power, education policy could get back on the right track. Unfortunately, that's an assumption one shouldn't make.
Eric V. Schlecht is a Senior Policy Analyst for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.
1 National Taxpayers Union Foundation, "National Taxpayers Union Foundation's Cost Analysis of The President's State of the Union Address," http://www.ntu.org/sotu/SOU2000.htm.
2 "Republican Response to the State of the Union Address," http://www.senate.gov/~collins/sotu.htm.
3 Eric A. Hanushek, "Making America's Schools Work: This Time Money Is Not the Answer," Brookings Review, Vol. 12, No. 4 Fall 1994.
4 C. Emily Feistritzer, "Report Card on American Education: A State-by-State Analysis, 1972-73 to 1992-93," 1993, National Center for Education and American Legislative Exchange Council.
5 National Taxpayers Union calculation based on numbers included in the Historical Tables of the 1999 Budget of the United States Government.
6 Ibid.
7 Eric A. Hanushek, "Making America's Schools Work: This Time Money Is Not the Answer," Brookings Review, Vol. 12, No. 4 Fall 1994.
8 National Center for Policy Analysis, "Other Countries Surpass U.S. Graduation Rates," http://www.ncpa.org/pi/edu/pd112498a.html.
9 Ibid.
10 National Center for Policy Analysis, "TIMSS Scores: U.S. Seniors Near Bottom In Math, Science," http://www.ncpa.org/pi/edu/feb98l.html.