Here is a question for you all:

Should the Federal government spend any money at all on education?

I do not believe that it should. In fact, I feel it a violation of the Constitution to do so. Education is and should remain a state and local issue. The Federal government has no business spending money on schools (except for West Point and Annapolis). To paraphrae a former president (several in fact) , I cannot put my finger on the phrase in the Constitution that authorizes such an expenditure by the Federal Government.

But if you do think it is good for the Federal government to spend money on schools, why do you?

Should the Federal government spend any money at all on education?
No. I don't believe the Federal government should spend money on education. The Federal Government does not have the authority to do this nor do I want it too. This is a state issue and should be addressed by the states. The people of each state must decide how important education is and tax/budget accordingly.

Should the Federal government spend any money at all on education?

Yes, see below.

But if you do think it is good for the Federal government to spend money on schools, why do you?

1) I generally hold the philosophy that the federal government is responsible for providing leadership/funding for issues that are a great national interest and importance. I believe that education falls into this category. If we expect to continue to be leaders in the 21st Century we need to ensure that education is a priority, and in my opinion a higher priority than we currently hold it at. The following are some of the major obstacles standing in the way nationally:

Literacy: From a global perspective America isn't doing too bad. However, if you look at the actual numbers (xls) you'll find that roughly 44 Million Americans are illiterate. That is quite a large number and also completely unnacceptable.

Class Sizes and Facilities: There are nearly $127 Billion in construction and repairs needed nationally. The schools we have are falling apart (particularly in lower income areas since they are supported mostly by property taxes in many states) and the schools we have are over crowded. It is a proven fact (and I'm sure many of us know by experience) that smaller classes = better learning.

College Accessibility: Many state schools have had to make drastic cutbacks in recent years due to budget problems in their state. I can't speak for the whole of the United States but I know this is particularly bad in California. Friends who are alumni of Berkeley are constantly talking about how bad the school has deteriorated in recent years in terms of quality education and faculty. You also have the problem of sky rocketing tuition costs, which increase yearly and eventually we'll price a good portion of the population out of the market.

2) States are incapable of adequately funding schools. This has been proven time and time again with some of the issues I cited above. Education always makes up a relatively small portion of the state budget and it always seems to be one of the first things that gets cut when budget problems occur. It is also unfair that just because you live in a state that isn't very wealthy, say Arkansas, that you should have a worse education than a state with better funded schools.

Teachers are paid so little money that it is laughable, and as a result schools are generally understaffed and schools in poor districts are particularly understaffed.

Finally, with education being managed at the state (and even local levels) there really isn't a standard education. You could take a group of 50 8th graders one from each state, and each one would probably have vastly different amounts of knowledge about one subject vs. another.

3) There is not one other area the federal government could spend money on that would have as great of an impact as education. Let's just take the money spent on Iraq the past year or two - about $200 Billion or so right?

If you were to apply that amount of money to education you could fix every school in the country and do all required construction, you could ensure that every adult that wants to go to college does so on the federal dime, you could vastly increase the teaching pool and the resources available to teachers.

In short, you could change the country. All of these things would increase jobs in the country and spur on the economy. It is also far more productive as far as helping people than welfare, social security, etc all combined.

I don't see a good reason for the federal government not to spend money on education.

First let me be clear, I am all for education. I am all for STATE funded education.

My State pays a lot of money per child in education; in fact according to the data released by the Census NJ pays the most per child then any other state. Piper and I can both attest to the fact that NJ has extraordinary high property taxes and we both pay a rather high state income tax. We both grew up in a state (NY) that has a lower property tax but a much higher income tax. That State is the number two highest funded education system in the country.

Here is the Census press release and data in 2002:

2002 Census Press Release



Now since I was a product of the NYC public school system and NYS pays a lot of money to educate its youth does that mean I am smarter then everyone except the top 6 states? I don't think so. Since the District of Columbia is only slightly behind me in spending then surely they should, at least, be able to compete with my superior brain. . Let's look at the District of Columbia, The number 3 big spender in public education.



School Funding Varies Among States

Firstly, I think the States that place a low priority on funding their own public education should step up to the plate before we start pouring more federal money into our school systems.

Secondly, If the number 3 largest publicly funded school lags behind in the skills they are getting with that money, it leads me to believe that it is the school systems themselves that need to be reformed. Money isn’t going to fix all the problems. Lets look at the schools and how they are spending their money. Is enough being allocated to the teachers to retain them? Let us not forget that the parents, too, have a responsibility here. My mom made sure that when I was diagnosed with a severe reading and learning disability that she spent the time to make sure I did my exercises instead of running out and playing or watching the tube. The school system would have been just as happy to throw me into program for slow learners even though I was far from slow.

I wouldn't mind spending more in education as long as the money is being spent wisely. This is a state issue and each resident of a state should be looking within themselves to solve their issues.

The one thing that this clearly does not address is the disparity between different states.

Most states fund education through some combination of property taxes and income tax. However, there are several problems inherent with that system of funding.

1) Many states do not have an income tax, therefore they have less revenue to work with for budgeting.

2) States have vastly different population sizes, which in turn effects revenue from both income and property taxes

3) Some states have property that is much more highly valued than others. The Median home price in California is something ridiculous like $400K to $500K. In a state like Arkansas I would be willing to bet that number hovers around $100K.

States all have roughly the same budget line items they are forced to pay for, some states just have more money to work with. That plus the 3 aforementioned factors add up to education losing out for some states that aren't as wealthy.

So it begs the question, are students in less wealthy states like Arkansas less deserving of a good education than students such as yourself that grew up in NJ (which has good funding) or such as myself who grew up in an affluent Texas neighborhood?

I would say no, that is not something that we as a nation should find acceptable.

The point of funding things federally is that we could equalize education so that everyone gets a good education and you don't have some portions of the country growing up uneducated and illiterate.

It also eliminates the disparity between rich and poor neighborhoods in terms of school quality. Are schools in poor neighborhoods of lower quality because the students are dumb and don't want to learn? No, it is because the schools do not get as much money via property taxes (usually) and therefore they just can't educate the students. Schools in rich neighborhoods on the other hand are all top notch because they have high property taxes on several hundred thousand dollar homes supporting them.

Federal funding of schools most definitely would not cure all ills in the school system, but without addressing some fundamental problems, there is no hope of solving some of the other ones. States as a whole (not saying individual states don't do ok) are just not up to the task.

Here's one good reason...The Constitution does not give Congress authority to collect taxes for, fund, or operate schools.

Our elementary and secondary educational systems are dismal compared to many other educational systems throughout the world, but we do have schools which are among the best in the world. Thousands of foreigners come to America, and pay a lot of money just to go to these schools. They are our Universities. The Federal Department of Education has very little (if any?) say in the way those curriculums are run, and there is a tremendous amount of competition. Coincidence?

Cube Jockey, you mentioned that small classroom sizes are better. Why? Because there is more individual attention. How can it be concluded, then, that the Federal government should offer any cure for the woes of our state school systems, thousands of miles removed from the problem? Federally funded dollars and federally funded directives go hand-in-hand. ‘No child left behind’ is an excellent illustration of how federal mandates force educators to submit to compliance, rather than making real improvements to student performance.
But, then, a gallon of milk in my state costs about four dollars, and a gallon of milk in many of the southeastern states costs less than two dollars. Salaries and goods reflect the prices of the area they are obtained. The cost of teaching students in S Carolina is nowhere near as high as the cost of teaching students in California.

That is actually my whole point. Every state has a right to decide what is best for their state.


Then start taxing or think of a way to raise revenues. NJ decided that public education is in the best interest of their people and the only way to raise revenue is to charge high property taxes then that is the decision of the New Jersey people. If you want our education, then come and live here. Just expect to pay high taxes. Why should I now also fund a state who places a low priority on their education system?



Isn't there a strong likelihood that they would also have less children to educate?


Yes and also their cost of living is much lower. Does a teacher in Kansas need to earn as much as in NY? Lower cost of living, lower salary...



I'm not saying that a poor state is less worthy but their are other factor's to look at. Listen, I will be the first to say I AM POOR. In fact I can barely afford to eat. My sister worries about me. I can't afford health care because of the Democratic tax filled state I live in. Their regulations make it virtually impossible for me to buy health insurance. But I'm not complaining because 1. I choose to live here, 2. I choose to pursue my dream. and 3. While my parents could help me I am fiercely independent. I don't need to pay higher taxes when another state refuses to tax their residents. And I am not going to jump on the band wagon and throw money out there until it is proven to me that the other states have no other alternatives.


The thing is why aren't the states taking this seriously? Why is it such a low priority for them? Why aren't their residents making it a priority? If it isn't a priority for them then why should I be made to lay out more cash for them?

The achievement gap is also something that I feel is handled improperly. If I can find the link, I'll post it, but Mt. Vernon, an inner city, is like a poster child as to how a poor community can lessen the achievement gap. If I remember correctly one of the priorities of the Principal was forcing parental involvement. I changed high schools my senior year. The school I was in was a more middle to upper class school district, the one I went to was an inner city school. Do you know which one was better? The inner city school. It had more AP, arts, and foreign programs then the school I came from. This school clearly placed a high value on making sure its students were well rounded and prepared for college then the school I came from. Even within the NYC school system there was a disparity among the schools and the inner city school was the better school.

edit to add: here is the link on the Mt. Vernon elementary school.
achievement gap

I took a look through the document again, and I can't find anywhere that specifically denies Congress the right to fund education. It isn't specifically listed either (that I could find) as something they can fund, but we all know money gets spent on plenty of things not specifically in the constitution. If I am overlooking the passage you were referring to please feel free to correct me.


Having good Universities and having a bad public education system doesn't make for a good educational system overall.

First, many kids don't get the opportunity to go to college. The only education they get is what they get in public schools. So if you are saying the system is dismal, then it follows that the education of many Americans is dismal.

Second, many kids do not go to Universities because of those same dismal school systems. They either don't have the grades, don't have the motivation because they don't see the value of learning or fall victim to some of the other problems schools like that create.

Finally, Universities cost a lot of money, and that is the difference. University professors are highly educated and most of them are fairly well paid as far as teachers go. But again here we still have problems. Private Universities are generally better than State Universities. State Universities are in the same budgeting nightmare as our dismal school systems and many have started to decline in recent years. As I said before, Berkeley is a prime example of a state school that used to be world class overall but in recent years has declined to be really good in a few fields and average in all others.


The federal government could help out here because in my initial post I stated that there were currently $127 billion dollars in emergency repairs and new construction of schools that were necessary nationally. The new construction of schools (and in some cases repairs) would allow schools to reduce classroom sizes by off loading students to new schools. Additionally the federal government could put money towards hiring new teachers which would reduce class room teacher-to-student ratios.

Many of the problems our school systems have stem from lack of funds.


"No Child Left Behind" is a prime example of the wrong way to help education from a federal level. It was an underfunded mandate and it was based on a flawed approach in the first place. It is also a good example of a politician saying they have a "plan for education" to throw a bone to certain constituents when in fact most schools that implemented this would have been better off flushing this money down the toilet and continuing with business as usual.



Any politician that suggests they raise taxes usually ends up being a one term politician. People don't like taxes, and usually stop listening to what you are saying right after you say "raise taxes". It wouldn't matter what you are raising taxes to support.

California is a perfect example of that. The state is woefully in debt right now with a huge budget crisis. Gray Davis suggested solving that in part by raising the vehicle tax when you register. In part that got him booted out of office and the first thing Swartzenegger did when he was elected was repeal it.

I don't see why the concept of paying taxes to support something outside your state is foreign, we do it all the time with our income tax. I consider education to be a fundamental right, above what any state legislature thinks, and therefore within federal domain. If you don't think of it the same way then I guess there isn't much way I can argue that point with you, all I can do is provide examples of how the policy of letting states run things is an abysmal failure.


Teacher salaries are not extravagant by any means, and there really isn't very much difference between states if you look at the actual cost of living. Here is a chart that lists average teacher salary by state.

As you can see, they don't make much. In looking at the states I'm familiar with, I would hardly describe them as adequate for the cost of living in most cases. In California the average salary is $47K. That isn't going to get you anywhere in most of California unless you have roomates or are married and have a spouse with a good job. $47K a year will not buy you a house anywhere that I'm aware of, and if I made that little I couldn't even afford the apartment I live in (which isn't even that expensive).


I wish I knew the answer to that question, I really do. I suppose it is because of the fact that if you are on the poor end of the scale and go to a bad school you really don't have any political power in the first place so no one is going to listen. If you live in a good neighborhood and go to a good school then you won't be complaining.

So I would say that it isn't a low priority for them, I would just say that the people most effected by it don't get heard, that is the way politics works more often than not.


Good article, and I guess there are exceptions to every generalization. However, the school is relying on something entirely intangible for success, motivating the teachers to care about their job even though they can't pay them much. That simply won't work everywhere, but nothing says it can't work in a lot of places.

Amendment X

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.


We invest more public money into the education of our children than most other countries which exceed us academically. Japan and Korea, for example, spent 3.7 and 3.6 percent of their GDPs, respectively, in 1997. We spent 5.4 percent. Japan's GDP is less than half of ours, and Korea's GDP is less than a tenth. The problem isn't lack of funding.

To answer the question- yes, the goverment should spend money on education- and to quote the cliche'= you think education is expensive- try ignorance!

That being said- I don't think lack of money is the total problem (though they should be paying teachers wages competitive in the private sector with anybody else with that level of education) - I think we, as a society, tend to view our school system as a babysitter more than an education system. I know Russians pay a pittance for thier education system and it kicks our systems butt -

I said it in another thread- I think there should be some required parent participation in the children's education or they get charged for thier education.

I think there should be federal money in education. There is no reason that a child in one state should have a substandard education and a child in another state should get a great education. If that is the case it is every American's problem whether we like it or not. It's true that New York spends twice as much per student than Arizona but New York suffers when Arizona's students don't get a quality education. The federal government has the resources to help Arizona's students who's education has been stagnated by stingy senior citizens. I disagree with the government giving the states money with one-size fits all standards attached. A good midway point would be the federal government helping states maintain and build schools but let education of students be handled on a local level.
There is also the issue of consitutionality. I concede it may be somewhat unconsitutional for the federal government to intervene in education but I have a solution. Why doesn't the army rebuild our schools like they're doing in Iraq? There's nothing unconsitutional about that and we can save money by quartering them in private homes...

Perhaps the states should spend the federal money that they are currently receiving before we allocate increased federal funding to education.

News from the house education committee


Federal education spending just takes the solution even farther away from the problem than it currently is. Local school councils that get involved and do something can make a difference. Senators signing bills that they don't read is not going to help.

I think this may be a democratic tactic to get GWB out of office??

There are no easy answer's but a State is suppose to govern their people as they see fit. Also I am not convinced that it is entirely, if at all, a money issue. Reform within the school districts is the first route to take. And as carlitoswhey points out,




Salary was just one example of lower cost of living. Mrs. P gave another earlier regarding the cost of milk in various localities. Rent, buying a home, supplies, are all other examples of various costs that are cheaper in one area and more expensive in another. I have a sister in Indiana, her home there would cost about 4-5x more out here. Personally I advocate higher salaries for teacher's. I think they are unappreciated for their vital role in education but that doesn't change the fact that 40K a year in Kansas is going to give you more purchase power than in California.

Oh and you could purchase a lovely 4 bedroom home in Mississippi for $75K.
House for Sale
And for 49.5K you could own this dream boat


Yes I found this school to be very inspiring and hopeful. A principal's job is to be a LEADER. It is his/her responsibility to motivate his/her staff. This principal didn't just do that he also forced the parents to be involved. He took steps that were unpopular at first but got the parents to be there and know what was going on in their children's education. I want to know why this success story is not being implemented around the nation. I admit that kids from poor backgrounds are at a disadvantage. Some of that disadvantage can be attributed to the lack of parental involvement. Money is not going to get the parents to be responsible for their children's education. No matter how much money we throw their way. Parents must take an active role.

Yes, the feds should provide some funds. I'd prefer to see the full funding of special education programs, as well as funding for standards assessment.



According to the U.S. Department of Education website, federal funding isn't explicitly given. In a 10 facts sheet on public education, they do continue with the following:



So while the feds give many to supplement the states, it is a relatively small amount. 13% of the school's funding where I live is from the federal government. The Elementary & Secondary Education Act of 1965 and subsequently, No Child Left Behind Act are designed to improve and help the states run a more effective education system. These acts are hardly unconstitutional since the states(as I've learned previously here on A.D. ) are not compelled to follow federal lead on education.



The problem with exclusive state funding of education is that the feds are needed at times to make sure they protect the citizens(i.e.-think when segregation held sway) You also have an increasing trend of moving financing from the state to the local level, which is occuring with some disastrous effects. I believe it was the state of Oregon that shortened the school year and has adopted a four day week in order to save money. Of course, why base education on what is actually good for kids? Let's only consider the state coffers! The fact that so many states are struggling is a reason why the states can't handle it alone. They need help and shouldn't slough off the cost to the folks at the local level.

I think the problem with attempting to fix education is that no one clearly agrees on the problem. Is the problem lack of funding or mismanaged spending? Is the problem poorly defined curriculum or curriculum that is too rigid? Are parents involved enough or is policy being shaped too much by non-professionals? Despite all these questions and more, there are a group of people who are clamoring for a federalization of education. They have no idea what it will accomplish or how it will make things better. Let's look at what a federal education program will really mean.

1. Curriculum will be determined by the federal government. This means the lessons taught to our children will become increasingly politicized. Will the ruling party's education czar only approve history texts which portray their party in a shining light? Will certain events stop being taught in California because a group of lobbyists in Florida find it offensive?

2. Funds collected will be distributed on the basis of perceived need. This is a subjective standard which we have seen results in billion dollar bridges for Alaska while California's highways become parking lots. Need will be based on who owes who a favor in Washigton.

3. The more the federal government kicks in, the less states will feel they need to be held accountable. So, an increasing portion of the federal pie will each year have to be earmarked for education to keep up with inflation, increased "need". and diminishing state supply.

4. Teachers and local administrators will have less of a voice as decisions are made increasingly on a federal level. We can already see some of the dissatisfaction from NCLB stemming from this very issue.

The fed should stay out of education. Individual states should bare this burden. The Fed constantly oversteps it's bounds on our liberties. To make a point NJ may spend the most on education but they don't have nearly the best educational system. I went to school in NJ and they teach to the federal tests and not the material. The fed has no authority to regulate or fund our schools. They constantly take on powers that they are not given.

Also, throwing money at the situation and not fixing the problems isn't going to help anyone. People have more of a say in state govt then they do in the fed govt. The people should decide.

The Feds should totally fund education, and enforce a standard core curriculum. The states can take on all other aspects of education, but with some oversight. The farmer mentality in states like Idaho has been shown to produce high school graduates who are not qualified to attend college without first taking a year of remedial classes. This is personal experience speaking. I moved my family out of there just in time.
Gone is the day when we live, and die without ever traveling more than a few miles of our birth location.
We are not a collection of little countries, which is how many states saw themselves back in the revolutionary years. And, back then, there was no public school program at all, so it appears the founding fathers didn't think about it all that much. Just because they didn't care about educating the masses doesn't mean we should not care.
Look at it this way, if you spend a lot of time, money, and effort on your child's education, do you want some barely literate person from Toad Suck, Arkansas coming along and marrying into your family?

Right now, the fed's don't pay much in way of education. The Dept. of Education gets something like 57B a year about 10-15% of the amount spent on public educaiton for K-12. Any politician who cuts these funds is seen as being against education. I personally have no problem with federal money being spent on education, though I see no need for the federal government to take over the majority of responsibility for it.

There is no way to assess the (positive) market externalities of universal access to quality education. Some externalities include:
Less crime
Less healthcare costs
More informed voters, more democracy
More fluid labor force, freer labor market
Higher productivity
Dealing with less ignorance on a daily basis

Just a few I thought of. Anyone who thinks that education should be paid for strictly by those who receive it is failing to see the whole picture.

I tend to believe that competition provides for quality education, even between public institutions. I also tend to favor vouchers. $57B / 60M student age residents of US = $950 federal education voucher per student, or roughly 1/3rd the cost of tuition at a private school. This is vastly simplified, and does not account for college grants and loans, or the cost of special education.

There should be a national testing standard so that different teaching methods can be evaluated by parents, students, and administrators. Teachers should not be rated on the performance of students, but rather on the increase in performance of students they teach.

Exactly which ills will federal financing of education cure??? Name one state that cannot support its own education system (separate this from won't if you can). Name one study which shows a correlation between per pupil spending and quality of education. Federally sponsored education takes all power away from the schools. Facist and socialist countries need federal education to indoctinate the children. How else to do you get people to accept slavery? We do not. No one can show a single instance where federalizing education would improve education. No one can claim legitamacy to its costs.

You could definitely find places that spend a lot per student and get poor results, Washington, DC is an example.

I wouldn't advocate full federal funding for education, but federal funding for about a quarter to a third of it would allow states suffering a local recession to have some source of more constant funding.

A per student voucher or block-grant to states would not necessarily cause the federal government to take over the curriculum or allow them to control the minds of tomorrow's youth.

A limited number of requirements to redeem the vouchers would be in order: accreditation, equal opportunity, etc.

Right now there is legislation aplenty coming from the federal level that puts immense strains on the budgets of local schools everywhere. IDEA is the biggest one


If you have been indoctrinated into this law (and worse, asked to apply it daily) you would realize the weight this throws on the backs of states. This law accounts for nearly every kind of disability a person might have and provides a legal basis for various instructional variations they need. Is this a great thing for people with special needs? well, of course it is!

However, because of this the costs of educating special ed students (about 13% nationally)
rises, sometimes dramaticallly. This federal law is intended to provide all students with an EQUAL opportunity as promised them in the founding documents of the nation.

I have no problem with stopping all funding of education at the federal level but that would require a load of changes (likely all for the better).

There could be no federal mandates for equality, no testing, etc...

I'm not sure we would then be able to assure that "real" biology is taught in southern schools