The 'Obstacle' for "Crisis of Education"

My colleague’s March 26^th post “Crisis of Education in America” calls for increased funding for K-12 education to address the nation’s dropout and literacy problems and also to better prepare students for college-level work.  While I think that more funding for K-12 education can certainly be put to good use, I want to point out that K-12 education is primarily governed and financed at the state and local level.  On a nationwide basis, only 9.5% of total K-12 revenue is from federal sources.

Clearly the federal government has an established presence in education; however, I think that my colleague’s plea for additional dollars, presumably federal dollars, needs to be put in perspective of the current federal role in education, both in terms of policy/regulation and financial commitment.  If Congress were to provide significantly more federal funding for K-12 education, those dollars would likely be accompanied by a significantly expanded federal policy-setting and regulatory role.  States, particularly Texas, would probably take a dim view of additional federal education mandates.  For example, when part of the federal economic recovery funding was set aside for competitive grants, known as Race to the Top, Texas was one of five states that refused to apply for funding because of the perception of federal invasion of the state’s role in education.  In that case, preferential scoring was given to the applications of states that agreed to adopt federal curriculum standards for reading and math, remove caps on the number of charter schools, and so forth.  Likewise the federal government has been steadily backing away from the politically unpopular accountability requirements under No Child Left Behind by offering waivers of the requirements, for which more than half of states applied.  So, even at the current level of federal funding for K-12 education, there is overwhelming resistance toward federal policy-setting and regulatory roles.

And then we come to the level of financial commitment.  Let’s assume that a level of funding at least equal to state and local government funding for K-12 education would guarantee something like an equal federal say in education policy-setting and regulation.  Based on a report by the Census Bureau, in 2009, states contributed $276 billion to K-12 education, local governments $259 billion, and the federal government $56 billion.  So, it would take at least an additional $204 billion annually for the federal government to get in the range of an equal financial commitment.  Naturally there would also need to be consensus on just how to distribute so much additional funding and requirements for the state and local governments to maintain their current levels of funding.  Given Congress’ recent track record on passing a budget, there would seem to be nearly insurmountable odds against a coalescence of the political will necessary to pass an increase in excess of 350% of current federal K-12 education spending.

To be succinct, an increase in “spending” on K-12 education means the federal government has to pump money into it via its only revenue source:, what Justice Stephen Beyer called “the life blood of the government:” taxes. And, as I mentioned above, an incredible amount of taxes would have to be generated. (ask yourselves; who are, or will be soon, taxpayers, would you be willing to increase your taxes to meet this extraordinary sum?)

 Let me reiterate that I, too, find the statistics presented by my colleague troubling.  However, given both the historically limited role of the federal government and the current resistance both to any expansion of the federal education-related footprint and to a lack of consensus on spending in general, I think that citizens would be better advised to be active in pursuing accountability for results and enhanced levels of funding at the state and local level.