Neal McCluskey, Cato Institute
July 7, 2004
As you'd expect from the libertarian Cato Institute, this short report argues that virtually all federal spending on education is unwarranted: "for almost 40 years the federal government has broken with both precedent and the Constitution by inserting itself into American education, an area that is traditionally and legally the domain of state and local governments." And, perhaps even worse than overstepping its bounds, "all the federal government really does is take money from taxpayers and redistribute it, only with millions lost in bureaucratic processing and the remainder returned to states laden with inflexible restrictions." Not a surprising assessment to anyone concerned (or impressed) that federal ed spending grew from $25 billion in 1965 (in today's dollars) to $108 billion in 2002. What is more interesting and useful about this report is its brief history of the government's involvement in education, dating back to Massachusetts's Old Deluder Satan Act of 1647. Readers might also appreciate the categorization of federal education spending, tracking the major programs as of 1965, 1980, and 2002, the first two years representing, respectively, the birth of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the promotion to cabinet status of the Department of Education. (Only about half of federal education dollars flow through that Department, however; many programs such as Head Start, Job Corps, and ROTC are run by other agencies.) Perhaps most enjoyable are the examples of indefensible pork, such as funding for basket-weaving as a vehicle for teaching math and the $8.5 million "exchanges with historic whaling and trading partners program," a favorite of both Gadfly and Senator Kennedy. None of this folly is justified under Cato's strict Constitutional interpretation of the feds' role, but, this report argues, it isn't even defensible under the Department of Education's own stated purposes: to promote access and excellence in education and to serve as an "emergency response system" for critical needs. As for whether No Child Left Behind meets any of those criteria, Cato's position is crystal clear. Click here to see if you agree.
