The federal bailout allocated 150 billion dollars for education, a 2-year commitment to education that should have doubled local school budgets. It would certainly be too early to notice significant gains in education, as new hirings and new investments would occur over the upcoming summer, but we would at the very least expect to see, for the time being, a static picture. But we see the opposite: schools are in a frenzy to stay alive, teachers are losing jobs, and special projects are being eliminated. If there is in fact so much money being graciously pumped into the education system by the federal government, why does education seem anything but static? Why are schools closing? Why are local budgets being dramatically cut? California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Arizona have all announced profound decreases in education spending, despite receiving education relief from the bailout. Many states are following suit. In the midst of the boldest federal commitment to education since world war II, educators are running for the hills instead of celebrating.
The answer is clear for even the most casual reader of the newspaper: Local funding for education is gone. The economic crisis has extirpated state finances, rendering state budgets for education closer and closer to zero. The result is the bailout money is unable to bolster education funding; instead it merely stops the bleeding, temporarily. Pennsylvania’s newest budget proposals are the most extreme, calling to replace all local education funding with federal bailout funding. And such proposals should come as no surprise: local governments have many needs, and any money available will be used to fill those needs. The old education funding is being reallocated to many other state programs that are not getting bailout assistance, smoothing state financing across local budgets.
It’s hard to be too upset about all this; the economy is suffering and one sector affected is education, regardless of relief efforts by the federal government. The problem is what is happening to the power structure in American education: as local funding is replaced by federal funding, state governments are conceding control of their education policies to the federal government, a power shift that could strip local schools of their control of curriculum, mapping, and resource allocation. Whether or not such a power shift is desirable is a debate open to talking heads and casual readers alike, but its implications should not be ignored. Are we ready for a more centralized education system? Are we prepared for the federal government to dictate more education policy? Should we be alright with a more far-reaching national bureaucracy involved in our schools?
