The U.S Department of Education: Awash in Earmarks

In the run-up to the 2006 election, we heard a lot about sneaky Republicans and their underhanded grants called "earmarks" where legislators slip in some money for a special interest group in their district or state. No debate, often with no one else knowing about it. Now, with a new appropriations bill passed and we've seen that Dems do it too, we don't hear so much about what an awful practice it is.

While tracking down some details of the Department of Education's Inspector General's investigation of the Reading First debacle, I happened also on to his inspection of the Department's earmarks. I was surprised to see that in FY 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, there were 2,594 earmarks worth $369,655,366. They range from $10,000 for the Athens City, Alabama third grade violin program to $500,000 for "education programming" in Gila County, Arizona at Globe (pop. 7500), to $100,000 to the Alaska Hospitality Alliance Education Foundation for training in the hospitality industry.

There was the notorious $3.5 million to the scandal-ridden and now defunct Education Leaders Council, plus about $3 for KIPP Academies, and a million each for Teach for America and the Black Alliance for Educational Options.

What I find truly unfathomable, though, is that the department gives money to billionaires. While Eli Broad is plunking down $30 million to make education an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, the Department sent the Broad Foundation a grant of $4.7 million in taxpayer dollars from the Fund for the Improvement of Education Programs of National Significance (FIE). I thought foundations like Broad's gave money away. Silly me. And while former junk bond king, Michael Milken, lays $25,000 gifts on unsuspecting teachers from his and brother Lowell's Milken Family Foundation, that Foundation is getting $1.8 million from the Department -- from you, really.

Most of the money filters through two programs, the already named FIE and FIPSE -- the Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education. About all these grants, the Department writes, "All funded programs must be designed so that their effectiveness is readily ascertainable and is assessed using rigorous, scientifically based research and evaluations...Recipient of award must evaluate the effectiveness of their programs and report such information as may be required to determine their program's effectiveness. The Department must make these evaluations publicly available.

Do the programs rigorously and scientifically evaluate their effectiveness? In a pig's eye. The inspector found that staff in FIPSE spend about six hours a year with each earmark. For FIPSE's 1,234 grants, that works out to 7404 man house, 925.5 man days, and 3.7 man years, assuming a 50 week work year and 40 hour work week. FIPSE, at the time of the IG's inspection had a staff of 15.

The situation is much worse at FIE. FIE managed 1,202 grants and staff spent 35 hours a year with each. That's 42,070 man hours, 5258.75 man days, or 21 man years. Little wonder the IG found that some FIE staff had responsibility for more than 100 grants.

For the grantees, of course, it's nice work if you can get it.

Comments

[SirReal1]

Gerald,

You're kidding me, right?

According to your bio, you are supposed to be a "highly educated" man.

Are you actually suggesting that you DIDN'T KNOW that earmarks were used by Democrats and Republicans alike? Are you actually suggesting that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR PURPOSE?

"Earmarks" are a way for State Representatives and Senators to payback favors and get Federal dollar$$$ for their individual states and districts. This is a necessary part of politics, as "some" Presidents would never allocate funds to the states, if they were not forced to by having the funds rolled into a larger bill that the President WANTS. This is particularly pertinent when the Congress and the President are from opposite parties. Without earmarks it would simply be a matter of the party of the majority in Congress proposing legislation that the President opposed, and the Veto of the President on everything put in front of him. Earmarks allow a compromise of funding, without a abdication of individual ethics.

That said, I am well aware, and agree, that earmarks had become too large and too corrupt in their use, prior to 2006. What the Democratic Representatives did was to change the House rules so that EVERY EARMARK was clearly identified by its $$$ amount, its sponsor, and its recipient. The Senate (without a clear majority of Democratic votes) DID NOT pass the same change, so their earmarks are still "hidden". This was all reported ad nauseum in the MAIN STREAM PRESS!

I agree, some of these earmarks you have listed look outrageous, but I would have to ask what you should now realize is the obvious questions; Which side of Congress did these come from? Who sponsored (added) them? How significant were these "programs" to the Congress persons standing with their constituents.

You might not think that training in the "hospitality industry" is important, but IN ALASKA this is one of the highest paying jobs a person can obtain. Isn't that worth consideration?

(cont)

[SirReal1]

Dem,

The contradiction of your first paragraph is alarming.

"The looting (misappropriating) of Federal funds...which they fund out of property taxes (local)" presents a contradiction that is glaring in its profoundness!

There is a "bigger picture" that I fear you are entirely missing.

It may be that "in your community" you haven't seen the problems that many Americans have been confronted with in regard to "educating their children". If so, I congratulate you and your (local) school board.

Many are not so lucky! In MANY inner cities, it is NOT a matter of "lack of desire" (on the part of the school board, which b.t.w. is NOT just "down the road") to provide a better education to the children. It is often a matter of economic reality, that the citizens are already "taxed to the limit" and still can not provide the money required to significantly improve the "quality of the education provided". Some cities MUST spend significant amounts of money, JUST TO MAINTAIN the status quo!

Should those students have to suffer a "sub-standard" education because they have had the misfortune of being born in a "poor" neighborhood?

Many others are in rural, or "low population density" areas, like I, and my family, reside in. In our area, the population is disproportionately divided between "families with children" and "retiree's" whose children are now adults. Every year we go to the poll's and vote for "increased funding" for education, every year the "larger" retiree population votes against it. Without "Federal Funds" made available to our school district, we would have an even lower standard than we have now, which is "sub-standard" by every definition. Should my Son have to suffer that lower quality education because "locally" that was what the people voted for?

[Dem02020]

The looting (misappropriating) of Federal funds, in the name of education, raises the broader question of to what degree the federal Government should involve itself, in what is essentially a local effort of parents to educate their children, in schools (local) which they fund out of property taxes (local), and then administer (locally) by way of teachers and admistrators and a Superintendent and maybe a School Committee, all of it right down the street (local).

Where does Washington D.C. come into the picture?

Are our children's (local) teachers staffed and/or trained out of Washington?

Does Washington D.C. publish and provide the textbooks of the (local) classrooms?

The whole broader question of Federal influence on what is essentially a local institution, is topical right now in a presidential campaign, because the presidential candidates are often asked about public education (and often in tragic tones, as though something were in a disasterous condition, and needed their attention).

It's the perfect time for any one of these candidates to do the bold thing, and pull the mask off this myth, and state the truth:
That the quality and curriculum of Public Schools is a local matter, as those schools and the system that funds and administers them, is right down the street (local) from the parents and the children they are meant to serve.


Where does Washington D.C. come into the picture, except as some kind of central clearing-house of funds, from where to loot (misappropriate) money meant to pay for teachers and textbooks and the local schools themselves?