Dept of Education caused problems

oooohhhh, this should be fun.....

I lost track of this for a couple of days, but I will post some of the same info. and debate that I did over on the other thread:


Not so fast. I don't think they are false. I will admit I am a bit surprised education spending did not climb as a percent of the budget, but when I analyzed the data in more detail, I stand by my argument that the Department of Education has only caused increased mandates and spending. To start out on this again, the following goes back to 1920, I think on page 33 of the document.

http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=http%3A%2F%2Fnces%2Eed%2Egov%2Fpubs93%2F93442%2Epdf

In 1989-90 constant dollars, education expenditures per pupil K-12 was around $500 in 1920, and grew to about $5000 by 1990. The following link covers from around 1965 to 2002.

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html

In constant 2002 dollars, education expenses per pupil grew from a little over $3,000 in 1965 to about $9,000 dollars in 2002, and was about $7,200 or so in 2002 dollars in 1990, so translating back to about 1920, the expenditures in 2002 dollars would have been about $700 in 1920, so it looks like per pupil costs have multiplied by almost 15 times in constant dollars since around 1920.

Graphs show a change in the gradient of the curve to a steeper climb around 1965, which corresponds to an increase in federal education initiatives and the push to elevate federal education bureaucracy to a cabinet level Department of Education, and the curve shows another increased climb shortly after 1980, which may correspond to the ramping up of federal programs after the Department of Education got going good. The curve flattens again around 1990 but then has an upturn in the trend in the late 90's, and this trend seems to be unabated.

Overall spending on K-12 education per pupil in constant dollars has approximately doubled since 1979. Although some of this may be reflected in actual federal expenditures, local and state expenditures have obviously been affected by federal mandates and programs. I think this last point you are overlooking Parados.

Last point, Parados, to analyze federal education spending as a percentage of the budget does not accurately reflect the actual increase, because of the very radical increase in social security and medicare expenditures, which are going out of control, and skews everything else in comparison. If education simply maintains or slightly increases in terms of percentage of the federal budget, it would likewise indicate it is also out of control. We need to look at the actual numbers as a percentage of discretionary spending. If you do not include social security and medicaid, then what is the percentage? I am assuming your percentages include social security and medicare?

This link is a good one:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide02.html

Am I misreading this but is it showing 87 billion in 2006 for federal education spending?

To restate one important point. If you simply look at federal spending, you may have a point, but can you prove that federal mandates and programs have not caused much more local and state spending on education that is unreimbursed by the feds. Simply imagine all the paperwork, more administrators, more teachers, testing, and wasted time preparing for testing, etc, etc. etc. , longer hours at the schools to serve breakfasts, the list goes on?

I doubt if I've addressed all your arguments. As for the ramping up around 1965, I will not deny the ability of government to throw money at something even when that something is not cabinet level, and the 1965 time corresponds with LBJ's great society and all that went with it. I do contend however that creating a cabinet level department increases the likelihood of substantial growth in throwing money at a problem. Some happens immediately, and some happens a few years later as the bureaucracy grows, so we are still obviously seeing the effects of 1979 even now. Bureaucrats can and will create new programs to justify their existence, and No Child Left Behind is another example of that. I am no fan of Bush for creating that. When you elevate the importance of a function, like education, to cabinet level, it is only obvious that it will create more opportunities for more spending. We are seeing that right now.

Remember the liberal mantra, "it is for the children." We went from kissing babies to throwing money at the children without any constraint in how it is spent, only to get elected. Hows that for an opinion?

1965 was prior to the Dept of Education that you argued so vociferously was the cause of our education problems and didn't come into existence until 1979.

You stated..

1965 is BEFORE 1979. Are you now retracting your statement above? I pointed out that Education existed on the Federal level prior to 1979 but you appeared to argue that it didn't matter until the Dept of Education was actually created.

In 1920, the average time students spent in school was about 120 days. compared to the 160 days today. (Table 8) In 1920, 10% of 17 year olds graduated from HS. 70-80% do so today.(Figure 11) Percent of children in school with learning disabilities or other disabilites in 1920 - 0% Percent of children with disabilities in 1990 - 11.4% Percent with disabilities in 1965 - 4.3% (Table 12)

The statistics from 1920 point to a horrible education system. 120 days average attendance out of 160 school days, a 10% HS graduation rate, no schooling for hearing, sight impaired, or physical handicapped. Little schooling for mentally retarded. Lets go back to the good ole days....

Thta statement is so much BS compared to you other statements okie.. There was a push to make the Department of Education a cabinet level position in 1965? Was Carter President then? Because you argued this earlier -

Parados, you are correct, the federal expenditures were greater before 1979 than I realized. However as I pointed out before, government can still throw money at a problem if a function is down the ladder a step or two in the bureaucracy, and LBJ expanded his Great Society, and probably ramped up federal spending on education. I still contend that elevating education to cabinet level has indeed caused it to just grow further. I suppose one could argue that education becoming cabinet level was as much an effect as it was a cause of increased spending? Do you have any percentages of the budget that education might be now if you remove social security and medicare?

By the way, my last statement you quote is correct. Some may think it is still correct, but you haven't answered my question about how much state and local spending is due to federal involvement now? Haven't you heard of the term, "unfunded mandates?"

So let me see if I have this right yet okie.. You stated..



And yet you continue to claim this statement is correct?





Before 1979, the Federal government contributed a LARGER percentage of the local school funds than they did after 1979. You have done nothing but demagogue on this issue okie. Your facts are wrong and you refuse to even see where you contradict yourself.

Are you going to retract this statement for being completely false or not?

By the way okie..

If the schools were run almost completely on the local level before 1979 then there would be no mandates from the Feds. You can't have it both ways.

As I get time to research this, more info. comes to light, only confirming what we should instinctively know. According to one link, home schoolers in 1998 were educated for less than $600 each, yet scored higher across the board on standardized achievement tests like the ACT and SAT. Same link shows federal spending on Elementary and Secondary education growing by about 130% between 1980 and 1998, and I am sure if you factor in 1998 to present, the change is going to be more drastic. I've also discovered what is called "off budget" federal spending, which is nonfederal funds made available through federal program guarantees, such as subsidies for student loans, etc.

Yet you refuse to deal with the fact that your original statement was flat out false. Something that should be more and more obvious as you do more research.

I did not say "completely," I said "almost completely." I never said there were no mandates before 1979. I've asserted that elevating education to departmental status has only increased the propensity to grow, which includes a growth in the number and impact of the mandates, which it has, and the growth of local and state expenditures is in part due to mandates from the federal government.

I've already said federal involvement before 1979 was greater than I had thought, but that does not change the obvious fact that the bureacracy is spiraling out of control now, and obviously the priority placed on education spending on the federal level has alot to do with that, and elevating the function to cabinet level obviously has alot to do with that.

Which statement was flat out false?

Gee, we could teach every child in the US for $600 if we didn't have to pay for teachers, schools, transportation, lunch programs, janitorial services etc.

Home schooling can cost $600 because the teacher is FREE. The place the kids are taught is FREE. (at least not included in the cost of teaching) The transportation to outside programs is FREE. There is no cost associated to feed the kids or clean up after them associated with the schooling. I bet that $600 doesn't include the costs by the state to administer and test those kids.

Yet no one except you would imply that the same thing could be done in real schools. Are you volunteering to teach for FREE?

Just take a home schooling situtation with 3 kids, give the teacher the average salary of a local teacher. Lets say $36,000. (the average teacher salary in the 2003-04 school year was $46,597) Suddenly the cost of teaching those kids is $12,000 each without books or costs of the space. We haven't even begun to add in the cost of 10% of the home for a school space or food preperation costs during the day.

You are stating that 1979 and the Dept of Education created the problems we have today. No other way to interpret this statement by you..

Did the school system work great before 1979 or not?

That would mean it worked great in 1978, 1970, 1965.



Does "virtually everything" have a different meaning to you?

A lot of unfunded mandates would mean that the Feds are in some way controlling how the school is run. If the mandates are enough to drive up costs rapidly then the school is not running "virtually everything."

The statements are flat out false or gross exaggerations for the purpose of demagoging the issue. There is no way they are factually true.

Why don't do admit you were wrong?

Yes, I think it has created some of the problems we have today.


Not perfect, but better and more efficiently than now.


Not perfect, but better and more efficiently than now.


Local and state primarily ran virtually everything in the schools before 1979, but leading up to 79, federal programs were on the increase and the Department of Education cabinet level institutionalized the concept of increasingly more controls and mandates at the federal level, which are still in process now. Schools still obviously primarily still fund and run the schools to a certain extent, but there is less local control now than ever.



The Feds are controlling many aspects of how schools are run, now more than in 1979. Control may not be a perfect word. The locals are driving the car so to speak, but there are so many more rules on how the car must be driven, I would say the Feds have placed alot of those rules and mandates in the system as to how the car can be driven (schools), so therefore yes, they are controlling education a whole lot more than ever.

If you think an opinion that fundamentally believes centralization is inefficient is demagoguery, then you are calling a whole lot of people demagogues. To argue that increased emphasis on federal mandates is not inherently driving up costs is blind to reality.

One other point. I had cited the cost of education to be about $500 per student in 1920 in 1990 dollars. You pointed out that the school year was shorter, etc. which explained in part this lower cost. This argument actually reinforces the statistical fact then that actual equivalent cost was some higher than the $500, which when factored into the growth curves of education per student, the growth would have been flatter for several decades. Under the original curve, it took roughly 30 years to 1950 to double the cost of education per student in constant dollars. If you start out at higher than $500, then the time to double would have been close to 40 years, to around 1960. What a coincidence Parados, the 60's signals a stronger rampup in terms of federal spending, leading up to and including the period after 1979. And as I've pointed out, education has expanded by almost 15 times since 1920 in constant dollars. If you adjust the original amount to higher than $500, then it has expanded maybe 10 times or more. So it doubled in the first 40 years roughly, but in the last 45 years, it has expanded by 5 times or more, so since the increased involvement of the federal government, it has expanded at more than twice the rate as before.

A gallon of Milk is $3.50 or so today. Guess we should blame that one on the USDA, eh?

Maybe the FDA

Cycloptichorn

Check it out in constant dollars. Maybe it hasn't changed much. Might even be cheaper now. You might have made my case but didn't intend to. Reason, farmers still milk the cows and produce the milk, not government.

Gasoline in 1945 was $.21 a gallon and if you kept it in constant dollars, it would be well over $10 a gallon. Private enterprise produces gasoline. Government produces education. Big difference.

The plot thickens:

http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/issues/issues418.shtml

There is a ton more going on out there than I dreamed, but I did imagine it was becoming a bigger problem all the time, just from news absorbed from time to time.

As I said before, perhaps the formation of the Department of Education was as much an effect, or symptom of the problem, as it was a cause, but I think once the push of more involvement gained cabinet status, it does indeed institutionalize the license to grow and add more bureaucracy at the federal level. After all, its called justifying one's job. That is exactly what has happened. After all, who can be against education, and kissing babies?

Who said Bush was a right wing extremist? He's a liberal when it comes to federal education spending.