THE 100,000-TEACHER SCAM By David W. Kirkpatrick
Few Choice Words, A Publication of the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy, November 19, 1999

        "Each year, the national government invests more than $15 billion in our public schools. I believe we must change the way we invest that money, to support what works and stop supporting what doesn't."
-- President Clinton,
State of the Union Address, January 1999

        In fact, the national government spends much more than $15 billion a year for the public schools, but the point is not whether it should or not, or for what purpose. The issue is that it is nearly a year since he made that statement, and next year's appropriations are being completed. It has been estimated that the federal government funds 760 education programs, scattered throughout government, yet the president hasn't named a single one that should no longer be funded because it doesn't work. Not only that, he has consistently disagreed with any such program that others have singled out.

        For him this is a win-win situation. The public thinks he is for efficiency and economy while his public education supporters continue to receive money. As former Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander once said, they look for the officials who will "give them the most dollars for the least change."

        Nor need the President engage in any search for an appropriate target. The largest federal education program, now some 35 years old, is Title I, to assist disadvantaged children which, all can probably agree, is a worthy goal, both for them and for the future well being of the nation. To date, the federal government has spent more than $120 billion - that's Billion - in this effort , yet the gap between those who achieve and those who do not remains, as many sources have noted.

        That would seem to make it a candidate for no further funding, reduced funding or, at least, a major overhaul. To the contrary Title I funding is scheduled to increase from less than $8 billion this year to nearly $10 billion next year. The Republican Congress is going along because they are afraid of further accusations that they are against public schools and low-income, low-achieving students.

        As former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has said, she "generally found that the Left seemed to be best at presentation, the Right at getting the job done." The problem is that, in a controversial matter, the job can't be done if it isn't presented effectively.

        This still doesn't excuse the President for not identifying the specifics implied by his generality - that is, if he meant it.

        As an aside, if the federal government isn't even going to pay the full cost the first year, which it isn't, how long does he propose it receive any funds from the national level? And how does he insure that happens after he leaves office? It should also be noted that Congress didn't oppose his program. It was included in their budget package. They gave local districts the option of using the money for additional teachers or, in their wisdom, for whatever need would seem to them to be the most pressing.

        To which President Clinton objected, and vetoed the measure. His reasoning why decisions to spend the money shouldn't be made locally? "Because it's not their money."

        Oh. Is it his?

        A few years ago, in another State of the Union address, he said "the era of big government is over."

        Is it smaller now than then? Has he abolished any programs, or advocated that any be ended?

        On the contrary, he keeps coming up with more programs, of which 100,000 more teachers is one.

        Once again, he seems to be winning the public relations war. But let's look at it objectively.

        It's said this will cost the federal government $1.5 billion. Wrong! That's only $15,000 per teacher, a woefully inadequate figure. Even if these new teachers all start at the bottom of the salary schedules, they will average at least $30,000 per year in salary and fringe benefits. That's $3 billion. And it doesn't count 100,000 new classrooms and facilities that will be needed (or band rooms, libraries, cafeteria space, etc., that will have to be taken over to make room) for all these new teachers.

        Other considerations include the fact there are nearly 3,000,000 public school teachers now; so 100,000 more will mean approximately one new teacher for every 30 now on the scene. Reduced class size?

        There are some 86,000 public schools in the nation, so each will qualify for slightly more than one new teacher or, for round numbers, 100 new teachers for every 86 schools. Reduced class size?

        There are about 14,500 public school districts in the nation, so the President's proposal will give each them an average of seven new teachers. Reduced class size?

        In short, billions will be spent. Thus, even if everything works perfectly, the impact will be minimal.

        Except for one thing.

        About 90% of the public school teachers in the nation belong to the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers, especially the former. Both, of course, strongly support the president. So it can be expected they will pick up about 90,000 new members. At an average of $500 for local, state and national dues per year per teacher, they will gain $45 million in income.

        Undoubtedly a coincidence, one that surely has not occurred to the President.

CER Home Page The Education Forum School Choice E-Mail CER CER Publications