After House Republicans’ weak first attempt at offering cuts to gargantuan federal spending — a proposal that included nary a flick at education‐related outlays — and the Obama administration’s hinting that it would leave education totally untouched, there is a tiny bit of good news: Both the GOP and the administration are apparently willing to trim funding putatively intended to help educate people. But these are just tiny bones they’re throwing to people who know that the federal government likely does zero net good when it comes to actually educating people, and that there is no acceptable excuse not to make big cuts to federal “education” programs.
House Republicans, for their part, scheduled lots of education programs for shaves in their second attempt at making a reasonable budget proposal. All told, though, the cuts would amount to only about $4.9 billion out of a total Department of Education budget of about $63 billion. For those keeping track at home, that’s just a 7.7 percent cut.
Now, maybe that would be reasonable if ED‐administered programs worked, but as we at Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom have laid out repeatedly, they do not. Overall, they pour money into already cash‐bloated K‑12 and higher education systems; insulate public elementary and secondary schools from ever having to compete for and earn their money; and fuel rampant college tuition inflation by constantly increasing aid that lets schools raise their prices with impunity. Perhaps the most telling sign that the House GOP is not serious about really cutting Washington down to size, though, is that the laughable Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners program is not on their chopping block. If you won’t pick off this ridiculous, almost‐on‐the‐ground‐it’s‐hanging‐so‐low fruit, you simply aren’t really trying.
For the Obama administration, while the details of their proposed cuts aren’t yet out, early Fox News reporting says the administration will propose cutting Pell‐Grant spending by $100 billion over ten years. That’s a bit surprising, because President Obama has made getting as many people to graduate college as possible — regardless, sadly, of whether that means there’s actually greater learning — a key education goal. Moreover, constantly growing Pell has long been a way for federal politicians to demonstrate that they “care” about educating all Americans. So, maybe, one cheer for the administration.
Unfortunately, as is often the case when it comes to budgeting, this might be a trick. An unnamed administration official reportedly told Fox that the administration will propose keeping the maximum Pell at $5,550 a year and would realize savings by ending year‐round Pell eligibility. With year‐round Pell, a student could get two grants in a calendar year for taking a regular academic‐year load as well as summer school. According to the Fox News story, the “official said the costs” of year‐round Pell “exceeded expectations and there was little evidence that students earn their degrees any faster.”
So why’s this potentially a trick? The budget experts could no doubt give you lots of reasons, but knowing education policy I can safely say one thing: It is far too early to say whether or not the year‐round Pell would help students earn their degrees any faster. Why? Because year‐round Pell was only instituted in 2008, much too recently to have any useful empirical data about its effect on graduation rates. It also seems likely that this will produce no savings regardless because students will still take Pell grants for the same number of total credit hours.
Of course, the main problem with Pell is that it enables schools to ratchet up their tuition rates, capturing all the aid and not making students any better off. Even bigger than this, though, is that almost certainly because spending on education plays so well politically, the administration is ignoring the same screaming reality as the House GOP: Federal spending on education does little if any educational good! Add to that the unconstitutionality of federal involvement and there is simply no acceptable argument — including a desire to “win the future” — for not eliminating federal spending done in the name of “education.” Indeed, if we want to win the future, ending bankrupting spending we know does zero good is absolutely imperative.
