Donate
Email Password
Not a member? Sign Up   Forgot password?
Business and Economics Education Environment Health Care California
Home
About PRI
My PRI
Contact
Search
Policy Research Areas
Events
Publications
Press Room
PRI Blog
Jobs Internships
Scholars
Staff
Book Store
Policy Cast
Upcoming Events
Should City Hall Go Bankrupt?
5.30.2012 12:00:00 PM
A CalWatchdog Series on Municipal Bankruptcy 
More

Capitol Update with U.S. Rep Darrell Issa (CA-49)
6.14.2012 12:00:00 PM
Chairman, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
More

Jonah Goldberg Luncheon and Book Signing
6.22.2012 12:00:00 PM

The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of IdeasMore

Recent Events
Benjamin Rush Society Debate: UCSD
5.17.2012 3:00:00 PM
UCSD Benjamin Rush Society More

Public Pension Tsunami: Closer to the Shore?
5.17.2012 12:00:00 PM
Public Pension Panel More

Benjamin Rush Society Debate: Harvard Medical School, May 3, 2012
5.3.2012 5:45:00 PM

Harvard Bejamin Rush Society Debate

 More

Opinion Journal Federation
Town Hall silver partner
Lawsuit abuse victims project
Press Archive
E-mail Print Al Gore and Education Reform
KQED Commentary
By: Lance T. Izumi, J.D.
3.1.1997

KQED logo

by Lance T. Izumi, Fellow in California Studies
Pacific Research Institute
March 1997


Announcer lead: Time for Perspectives. Lance Izumi says that the Clinton administration's actions on education don't match its words.

Vice President Al Gore recently delivered a speech to a joint session of the California State Legislature which was billed as an announcement of a "national blueprint to reinvent the way we spened money for education." In his address, Mr. Gore said that America must ensure that more dollars are spent on educating students rather than on "bloated bureaucracy." That great rhetoric, but the Clinton administration's record shows that it has no problem with propping up that bloated bureaucracy.

Take, for example, federal education spending. According to a recent study by the Heritage Foundation, of the $100 billion spent by the federal government on education in 1995, only $13 billion went to local school districts. According to the report, several billion dollars is spent on bureaucracy at the federal, state, and local level just to administer the federal dollars going to local districts.

Take also the Clinton administration's Goals 2000 program, which is supposed to finance innovative state and local education initiatives. Under the Goals 2000 law, a wide variety of new federal bureaucracies are created such as the National Education Goals Panel, resource and technical planning groups, regional educational laboratories, and a National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum and Assessment.

The size of state and local education bureaucracies have also ballooned in response to federal mandates. For instance, under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, local schools are required to provide services for a disabled child's education regardless of costs or the ability of schools to pay for them. In California, this has not only caused special education to be the state's highest spending education categorical program, it has also spawned new layers of bureaucracy. According to the state Legislative Analyst's Office, a whole consulting industry has sprung up just to help schools fill out the complicated forms needed to get special education funding.

If Bill Clinton and Al Gore want to attack bloated bureaucracy they should start by attacking Washington's role in promoting that bureaucracy.

With a perspective, I'm Lance Izumi

Submit to: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit
Within Press
Browse by
Recent Publications
Press Archive
Powered by eResources