You’ve all heard by now that our president’s budget proposal is out for 2007, and that with the exception of military and homeland security, programs are getting cut. A third of the 141 programs to be scaled back or eliminated are in education. He proposes cutting department of education funding by 3.5 billion dollars, zeroing out educational technology funding (E2T2) all together.
I think that Bush should propose a 25% increase in education adding 15 billion to the approximately 60 billion that is currently available for national education programs.
If you agree, why? What are the top 10 reasons why George Bush should passionately be calling for congress to increase education spending by 25%?
Please comment, and limit each comment to only one reason (unless you can’t help it). If you blog about the top ten reasons to increase education funding by 25%, please put the words reasons, education, budget, and warlick somewhere in the blog entry. I’ll install an aggregator here that will attract and list those blog postings.
$15 billion worth!
“An Inside Look: President Bush’s 2007 Budget.” NPR 6 Feb 2006. 10 Feb 2006 <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5192631>.
Blog Aggregator
I had a few more things to say over on Infomancy, but I thought this might be a good way to get the conversation started here as well.
Its NOT About the Money
An odd way to start a post about increasing spending on education, but I want to be very clear that I am not calling for trying to fix education by throwing money at the problems. This is about restoring things like E2T2’s educational technology funding, and providing additional funding for the currently unfunded mandates in NCLB. I don’t like everything about NCLB, but there are some good ideas in there that can only be realized with funding.
I would go a different route altogether Dave. We do not need a federal department telling us what to do in education. Leave it up to the states. Get rid of NCLB and all the unfunded mandates. Use 50% of the administration money on the department of education Carter created in 1979 and combine it with the money the federal government already gets. The disperse the money to the states in a fair way (maybe by pupil or by population) and let the states spend it.
Mr. Pak. This is a common discussion in my house. My wife also believes that education should rest squarely with the states. I’d take it down all the way to the teacher. Give the teacher the money, and have them spend it. So I think you make a valid point. However, I believe that there is a desperate need right now for national leadership in restructuring education. I would not want to see them as architects, of such restructureing. But the demand needs to come from the very top. It’s a national problem with national ramifications. All of our classrooms must be retooled for 21st century learning, and this means not only being refitted with contemporary technology, but extensive professional development is need to make sure that teachers not only have the skills and vision for the teaching and learning that is needed to day, but the practice of continuing reflection and continued retooling of their classrooms. We can’t leave this up to the vision of fifty states. It needs to start with the nation.
Cartoonist Ted Rall has a highly cynical yet (of course) not far off the mark take on this issue on his website (This is probably time sensitive. I couldn’t find a permalink to it but it’s probably Feb 12 or 13th, 2006).
Interesting question. But what is so curious is that federal funding has increased by 25% since 2001 – the largest increase as measured by both percentage and direct terms since 1965 if my calculations are correct. (http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html).
The largest programic increases include:
40% increase for NCLB programs.
45% increase for Title I
69% increase for Special Education
29% increase ($12.2 billion) for all discretionary spending.
The more interesting question is why schools aren’t using these increases for investments in technology. The increased funding for Title I alone is the equivalent of 2 or 3 Erate programs. Schools have the flexibility to use the funds for whatever they want – computers, software, elarning, professional development, services, etc. Maybe this is less an issue of Federal committment and one of local leaders not seeing the value of technology compared to other potential investments.
Thanks for the post, Larry, and I’m sure that your numbers are right. But it hasn’t been what was promised, and it’s not nearly enough to achieve the goals set by NCLB. The real problem is that states and local governments were left reeling by the federal monies that were withdrawn from their budgets in the early years of the Bush administration, in order to pay for the tax breaks — this in a time of economic downturn. The bottom line is that schools do not have the money to do what they’ve been asked to do. They do not have the money to do what they know as professionals needs to be done, and there is no leadership today, that can break the rut and set us on course. We needed a president who could lead us into the 21st century, not one who plunges us back into the 1940s.
But it hasn’t been what was promised
I’m confused by that statement. What was promised?
the federal monies that were withdrawn from their budgets in the early years of the Bush administration, in order to pay for the tax breaks
I’m sure that you’re right, but in the spirit of 21st century literacy (http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/2005/07/21/more-on-integrating-literacy/) can you point to some data on the web that shows what federal funds were “withdrawn” from state budgets?
The analysis I’ve seen, (here are two for consideration http://www.sbsc.org/media/pdf/SBSCpolicyseries11sts.pdf and http://www.rockinst.org/publications/fiscal_studies/state_fiscal_new_century.pdf), is that state spending in the 90s grew at a faster pace than an inflation, particularly in formula programs that were difficult to trim when tax revenues fell due to the tech bubble burst.
The bottom line is that schools do not have the money to do what they’ve been asked to do.
I could be wrong, but it seems that all NCLB asks of schools is to ensure that students become proficient in reading and math as determined by each state. And as you’ve pointed out numerous times on this blog, this ask shouldn’t be too difficult since most states have a very lower threshold for “proficiency” as compared with the broader literacy that you advance.
We needed a president who could lead us into the 21st century, not one who plunges us back into the 1940s.
A powerful statement to be sure, but what evidence do you have to back such a claim? Again, if I’m reading the data correctly from the budget, this Admin and Congress have increased funding more than any previous administration. And the increases are in the programs with the most flexibility for local administrators to decide where best to spend funds.
Thanks for the conversation!
Larry,
I wish that I could continue this conversation in earnest. Unfortunately, I have an all day workshop today that I have to prepare for (5:00 AM) and another all day on Sunday, that I’ll be preparing for and traveling to tomorrow. Not enough time.
But briefly, I base my statements about the money, on my experiences in working with schools, districts, and states across the U.S. and how demoralizingly strapped they are for money. I remember and entire state that had to completely cut their staff development funding for an entire year. Another state who’s investment in technology during the ’90s, rusted out (figuratively), because they had to layoff all of their technicians, so that as computer broke down (small and large problems) there was no one to fix them.
What new, and different, and commendable, about NCLB is not just that we teach reading and math, but that all children learn to read and perform math. True and right on — as a foundation. But the all part is what’s expensive.
My point is not in the monies that have been spent. (and I grant you your challenge that I back up my claims with supporting information. You got me there, and I simply do not have the time, at present.) My goal is to make a compelling case that SUBSTANCIALLY more money needs to be invested in our future, through our classroom, so that we can teach our children from a contemporary information environment, the contemporary literacy skills that make them life long learners, adaptive contributors, and really happy people.
Thanks for the conversatioin. Got to get to my slides now 😉