The consensus on Capitol Hill is that American education is in
crisis. Our colleges are graduating students who are ill-equipped
to compete in the global economy, and our public schools leave
millions of disadvantaged kids behind. So why is Congress sending
precious education funds to a zoo in Akron and the Westchester
Philharmonic in White Plains, New York?
This month the White House Office of Management and Budget
unveiled a database of "earmarks," which are funding
mandates that Members of Congress dole out for specific projects,
typically ones benefiting constituents back home. The earmark
database shows that the Department of Education's diet is heavy on
pork. It received 1,199 earmarks totaling $483 million in fiscal
year 2005.
The bulk of this money went to the Office of Innovation and
Improvement ($289 million) and the Office of Post Secondary
Education ($148 million). Digging further into the database reveals
unsavory details of specific projects funded by these
offices.
The Office of Innovation and Improvement's 709 earmarks went to
entities like the Akron Zoological Park ($198,000) and the Alaska
Sealife Center ($248,000) in Seward, Alaska, for its "Marine
Ecosystems Education Program." The Westchester Philharmonic in
White Plains received $99,000 for music education. Average
per-student spending in White Plains topped $18,000 in 2004, more
than double the national average.
One of the larger earmarks in 2005 was $15 million for the
"Harkin Grant Program." This program, championed by Senator Tom
Harkin (D-IA), provides grants to the Iowa State Department of
Education to "help school districts correct fire safety problems
and to help school districts leverage local resources to construct
new schools or remodel...existing buildings." No doubt other
senators are envious that they couldn't deliver $15 million in
vanity education earmarks for their constituents.
Defenders of earmarks argue that Members of Congress are
uniquely positioned to ascertain local needs. And not all of the
money spent on earmarks is wasted; some actually does go to
programs that improve educational opportunities, such as more then
$3 million for the KIPP Foundation in San Francisco, which has
proven effective in serving disadvantaged kids.
Yet American taxpayers and families should question the earmark
process, especially when it comes to education. After all, who is
in a better position to determine the specific needs of local
communities, Members of Congress or local elected officials, such
as governors, state lawmakers, and mayors?
Think about how taxpayers and local policymakers could have
better used the $483 million put into education earmarks. Those
funds could have hired about 10,000 new public school teachers or
provided opportunity scholarships to 100,000 disadvantaged kids. If
that money had simply been returned to the local level, it could
have paid for a wide variety of programs tailored to improving
local education.
Pork barrel spending is a microcosm of the fundamental problem
with the federal government's current role in education: The
federal government is little more than an expensive and
heavy-handed middleman. In 2007, American taxpayers will spend more
than $66 billion on federal programs for elementary and secondary
education. Most of this money will be transferred back to states
and localities for specific programs, many of which have proven
unsuccessful and make no sense for individual schools.
Two fixes to the earmark problem suggest themselves. First, the
Bush Administration has the power to ignore education earmarks in
conference reports that don't wind up in the text of the law
itself. This would put an end to the haphazard and wasteful
earmarking of federal funds outside of the traditional legislative
process.
Second, Congress should fundamentally shift power from the
Department of Education's programs toward greater state and local
control. Rather than allowing Congress and the federal bureaucracy
to spend billions of dollars each year, control over funds should
be returned to the state and local level. This would deprive
Congress of money to earmark.
Replacing federal earmarking with transparency and citizen
ownership of education would give governors, state legislators,
state school chiefs, state school boards, local leaders, and
parents and taxpayers a greater say over how education funds are
used. That could mean less federal money for zoos in Akron or music
programs in White Plains, but it would be good news for students
across the country.
Dan Lips is an
Education Analyst at the Heritage Foundation www.Heritage.org.