[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 7342]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   WHERE DOES THE EDUCATION MONEY GO?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, many say as California goes, so goes the 
rest of the Nation. Considering that, I would like to bring to the 
attention of my colleagues a new study of public education spending in 
California.
  The study reveals that the generally accepted per-pupil spending 
figure of $6,700 for California students significantly understates the 
actual per-pupil spending figure that is approximately $8,500. 
Moreover, two out of five, two out of every five, public school dollars 
are spent on bureaucracy and overhead rather than on classrooms. 
Instructions and internal legal squabbles drain education dollars from 
the system.
  The authors, Dr. Bonsteel of San Francisco and accountant Carl Brodt 
of Berkeley, intended their analysis to be a nonpartisan one.

                              {time}  1300

  Bonsteel is a Democrat and Brodt is a Republican.
  I will share some of the key findings of the study entitled, ``Where 
is all the money going? Bureaucrats and Overhead in California's Public 
Schools,'' together with the authors' proposal for decreasing 
bureaucracy and enhancing accountability.
  First, consider that inflation-adjusted spending on public education 
in California has increased by 39 percent since 1978. Nevertheless, 
textbooks are frequently unavailable, school libraries have been shut 
down, and art and music programs have been terminated. The authors 
conclude, ``This is primarily because of the explosion in spending on 
administration and overhead.''
  Approximately 40 percent of California's K-12 tax dollars are spent 
on bureaucracy and overhead, not classroom instruction. This figure 
comes not just from the Bonsteel-Brodt analysis, but also from previous 
studies conducted by the Rand Corporation and the Little Hoover 
Commission.
  Four levels of administration run K-12 schools in California, and 
they act as though they are separate fiefdoms. They quarrel frequently, 
and often those disagreements end in lawsuits among the bureaucratic 
fiefdoms, with the taxpayers picking up the tab for lawyers on both 
sides. The California Department of Education and the State Department 
of Education maintain legal counsel to sue each other.
  This Bonsteel-Brodt study presents a sample State Board of Education 
agenda listing 30 lawsuits confronting the State Board. Seven of those 
suits pit one layer of the education bureaucracy against another layer.
  In one set of lawsuits, the San Francisco Unified School District and 
the State Department of Education have squared off over bilingual 
education. The STAR testing statute mandates that children who have 
been in the United States at least a year be tested in English, the 
presumption being they should have learned English by then. But the San 
Francisco school district contends it must test immigrant students in 
their non-English native language. San Francisco is the only district 
making that claim, but taxpayers must cover the cost of that legal 
spat.
  Even more troubling is that special education programs for children 
with mental and physical handicaps are plagued by bureaucratic gridlock 
at the Federal, State, county, and local levels, as well as by unfunded 
mandates from the Federal and State levels. Parents of special-ed 
children have no effective voice in program decision-making.
  Local citizens have diminishing power to influence local school 
policy, since almost two-thirds of education tax dollars now are 
funneled through the States. In addition, while the Federal Government 
furnishes just 6 percent of education funding, its requirements account 
for close to half of all education paperwork. Lisa Keegan, State 
Superintendent for Arizona schools, has said it takes 165 members of 
her staff, 45 percent of the total, just to manage Federal programs.
  The Bonsteel-Brodt study notes bureaucracies in all levels 
``invariably understate true per student spending.'' At the national 
level, the figures released by the National Center for Education 
Statistics are usually the ``current expenditures'' number, which does 
not account for the cost of school payments or interest payments on 
school bonds.
  In California, the spending statistics are ``even more deceptive,'' 
the study's authors charge. The all-inclusive and thus more accurate 
figure for per-pupil spending in California is approximately $8,500 per 
student, more than 25 percent higher. Using the low figure, the 
California NEA affiliate has advocated hefty spending increases for the 
express purpose of raising the State's per pupil spending above the 
national average.
  The best hope for decreasing bureaucracy and enhancing 
accountability, the Bonsteel-Brodt report concludes, is school choice 
of various kinds. They note, for example, that California's public 
charter schools have easily outperformed traditional public schools, 
while operating on about 60 percent of the per-student funding of 
conventional public schools. The charters have accomplished this by 
cutting the bureaucratic overhead.
  Mr. Speaker, as we look to solve America's education problems, we 
must first honestly ask, where does the money go? Only then can we make 
the right and often tough choices to reform education.

                          ____________________