Experts Divided on Education Proposal

Drawing on widespread dissatisfation with the declining standards of American schools, Republican senatorial hopeful James W. Rappaport has been pitching a plan to revamp the department of Education, by stripping of it its financial clout and shifting authority to the local level.

And while glitzier campaign issues have cast a long shadow in Rappaport's fight to unseat Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry, the reform plan has caught the eyes of education experts, who remain deeply divided on its prospects for success.

Like the high-profile Citizens for Limited Taxation petition to roll back Massachusetts taxes to their 1988 level, the Rappaport plan--calling on the Education Department to hand 60 percent of its budget directly to local school districts--has a lot of sparkle. But its critics worry that the plan is simply a repeat of irresponsible Reagan-era tactics that spurred serious fiscal problems in Massachusetts and other states.

"It sounds like he's got a way to go to become familiar with the Department of Education," said David Merkowitz of the American Council on Education. "The experience we had with that in the 1980s is that it's the reason so many states are in fiscal trouble."

The concept of deregulation, or "new federalism," has been a central tenet of Republican dogma since the early 1980s. Under the Reagan Administration, spending at the local level began to take precedence over "top-down" allocation of resources from the federal level.

The policy's rationale is that it sends the money directly where it is needed, bypassing unnecessary bureaucracy. After last fall's much-heralded education summit in Charlottesville, a number of politicians were quick to jump on the deregulatory bandwagon--including Rappaport, a 34-year old Concord business magnate who has never run for public office.

The latest proposed budget for the Education Department is $24.6 billion; the Rappaport plan would send $14.8 billion of this to local schools "with no strings and no bureaucrats attached," said Gary McMillan, a Rappaport spokesperson.

By reducing the size of the federal programs, the government would save at least $500 million, which could also be earmarked for local use, Rappaport claims.

"Effectively, there would be more money available for the schools," said McMillan.

Such proposals have a definite appeal for education officials dismayed by the declining standards of American education, said one Education Department official, who asked not to be identified.

"The thrust of his program we support," said the official, adding that Rappaport's estimates of the savings under his plan were substantially correct. "I think we're generally working towards what he's calling for."

However, the official added, the savings would force the government to neglect its development and evaluation of new school curriculums, and require cuts in many other programs.

And the dividend from such bureaucratic cuts, to be sent to individual school districts, may not necessarily aid public education. Several studies have indicated that educational performance doesn't always improve as more money is spent on each pupil.

"They're not necessarily related," the official said.

And by converting funds once earmarked for particular educational purposes into general "block funds," the Education Department could set itself up for a major cut in funding, said Merkowitz.

Such block funds tend to be among the first federal monies to be slashed during periods of economic hardship, because government officials often argue that the cuts will not eliminate individual programs.

But Education Department officials indicated that in the early years of the Reagan Administration, the bulk of the individually-funded programs were converted into these block funds.

According to education experts, the potential exists in such "flexible distribution plans" for civil rights abuses and corruption, if officials simply give away the money without proper supervision.

"Clearly, we're not going to give out $24 billion with no strings attached," said Melinda Kitchell of the Department of Education. "Without some kind of accountability, you're just handing out the dollars."

One education official said that increasing accountability was high on the list of the department's priorities. The Rappaport plan could either increase this accountability by trimming bureaucracy, or decrease it by loosening federal oversight without compensating at the local level.

"If there is no federal role and there is no federal oversight, I don't know if that's best for the children," the official said. Another criticism levelled at the "eliminate-the-middleman" proposals such as Rappaport's is that the middleman is simply overrated. "When you get to the Education Department, there isn't a lot of bureaucracy," said Merkowitz."

In fact, said Merkowitz, one problem the Education Department has encountered is a dearth of bureaucrats. A lack of inspectors and auditors has led, in the last few years, to a wave of student loan defaults.

The "bureaucratic layer after layer" which Rappaport condemns is actually thinner than it should be, Merkowitz said, especially in the area of student loans, a main aspect of the Education Department's activity.

"Proposals to cut bureaucracy in the Education Department seem a little misdirected," Merkowitz said.