On Monday I was a guest at the Southland Chamber of Commerce luncheon, which featured a debate for the office of Illinois Treasurer between Robin Kelly and Dan Rutherford.
A great question came from the audience which highlights the difference between the candidates in this race, but also is a larger example of the problem that we have in America. Read more »
President Obama asked Congress yesterday for $1.35 billion of additional funding for education, extending a grant program to the States. Taken from the Washington Times:
The $787 billion economic stimulus program Obama signed into law soon after taking office included $4.3 billion in competitive grants for states, nicknamed the “Race to the Top” fund. States must amend education laws and policies to compete for a share of the money.
The Education Department is expected to announce its first of two rounds of awards in April. More than 30 states were expected to apply by Tuesday’s deadline.
Obama will ask lawmakers for another $1.35 billion so that states not chosen in either award round will have a chance to compete for money, according to the officials, who spoke anonymously Monday because the president had not announced his plans.
This all sounds rather innocent, on a superficial level. States merely improve their education and get money from Washington. An artful spin on this might even be that Washington is encouraging competition among the States; who could object to that? There are a couple problems with this view, however: one problem is the effects of such policies and one problem is the sustainability of such policies.
The Department of Education’s budget for 2009 is a remarkable $64.9 billion. I won’t make the argument in this space that the education system in the United States is a complete failure. While a whole host of data could be drawn upon to make that argument (such as college completion rates remaining essentially unchanged, an indication of how well-prepared students are upon graduation), that’s not the issue for now. The question we have to ask is this: should the federal government be in the business of education?
The Federalist Papers
I generally consult James Madison when questions of propriety and responsibilities among the spheres of government come up. Not surprisingly, in the entirety of the Federalist Papers, not a word is made about what level of government should be responsible for education. Which is not to say that Madison didn’t have an opinion on the matter, as he notes in Fed #39:
In this relation, then, the proposed government [contemplated by the new Constitution] cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.
It’s a recurring theme in the Federalist Papers, if you’ve taken the time to read them. The Constitution that was to be ratified required explanation about what it authorized the federal government to do, and just as importantly, what it didn’t authorize the federal government to do. Of course, Fed #45 also notes:
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.
Perhaps another time we could recount the reasons for our arrival at this point. Certainly there are multiple causes for our ailment. One can point to the progressive left agenda dating back to the New Deal as one such cause. A general apathy about the purpose of government is another. Given time, a book could probably be written detailing each step along the way to today’s environment in which the most distant spheres of government are the most “important” and intrusive.
What we can conclude is that an entire re-ordering of the roles and responsibilities of each sphere of government is necessary. Our current trajectory – ever more centralized, ever more intrusive, ever more unresponsive – is fiscally unsustainable and has the seeds of future failure sown in it. The operative question we must ask in relation to government actions or programs is this: whose responsibility is it? Just as we must do for ourselves that which only we can rightly do, so too should States do for themselves that which only what they rightly should be doing. Abdicating our responsibility and allowing the larger sphere of government to do for us what reason and experience dictate we must do for ourselves may seem innocent enough, but it ever shall be the first chapter in the story of tyranny.
Well-meaning do-gooders with access to your wallet have failed – again, remarkably – to force distant external government to do that which is the responsibility of the individual and the family.
This article describes the wholly unsurprising failure of “Reading First” a federal reading program designed to help improve student reading comprehension.
The program, Reading First, was designed to help boost student performance in low-income elementary schools, but failed to improve reading comprehension, says the study from the Institute of Education Sciences, part of the Education Department.
There was no difference in comprehension scores between students who participated in Reading First and those who did not, the study found.
The findings released Thursday threw the program’s future into doubt.
Thank goodness for small favors; pity that it cost so much to learn an obvious truth. Our Founders knew that responsibilities belonging to the people had no business being co-opted by distant spheres of government. We’ll be forced to repeat this lesson until we insist our representatives adhere to the deliberate design and construction of the Constitution.
I closed the last post with a comment on the necessity of proper education, and that seems like a good place to continue the discussion.
If you accept the premise that our system works only when it is largely in a state of balance (with respect to the responsibilities of “government” among the spheres of government); and that it becomes more and more ineffective as it becomes more imbalanced, one is naturally led to a series of questions. How did our system of government become imbalanced? And, when? What would balanced government look like? And how can we return to such a system?
To address these questions requires some founding wisdom. Samuel Adams, leading American patriot and prominent agitator for liberty, noted in a letter to John Trumbull that: “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.” There was a time, not too long ago, when one could say without condemnation that religion is the foundation of liberty and happiness (see: Reagan, Ronald). That such a sentiment might be frowned upon by ivy league professors or media professionals doesn’t negate the validity of it.
Adams had a point, bigger than promoting religion: our form of government was designed not for a dependent people, but a self-governing one. And what is self-government other than the practical, behavioral manifestation of virtue, namely, self-restraint and self-sufficiency? Yes, it is possible to be virtuous and secular. The existence of this mysterious creature – the virtuous secular American – notwithstanding, anecdotal evidence generally shows that such people, when you meet and question them, have the strange coincedence of being raised with a Biblical/Judeo-Christian worldview. They usually reveal this when they say “well, I’m not religious, but I was raised in a (religious environment).” That their worldview is formed not by their current philosophical infatuation but by their upbringing is a point I generally walk right up to, but not past. After all, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still; and in time the person who is curious enough to study philosophy has a good chance of discovering this on their own. Such self-discovery, when it happens, is certainly more lasting and infinitely more treasured.
We’ve digressed a little, but the point, once again, is that self-government is the basis for how our whole system works. How does one foster this virtue?
There’s really one effective way to address this problem: focus on, not surprisingly, strengthening the smallest spheres of government. The smallest spheres are the individual and the family; and the neighborhood or the (sometimes church) community beyond the home. Stronger more personal spheres of government – closer to the individual – reinforce and strengthen the fabric of our republic. It should be no surprise that as we have ever-larger, over-reaching distant (federal) government, the republic as a whole seems weaker, less effective, more prone to failure.
Can it be corrected – or, in other words, how do we return to such a state of balance? It was Hamilton (Federalist No. 33) who once said: “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” So, naturally: we must first appeal to the form of our founding and second, act to correct the state of imbalance; the disrespectful relationship we’ve allowed between the citizens of this country and her founding compact.
Which brings me to education, because we first have to understand the “standard (we) have formed.” This organization’s purpose is to educate people on the proper role (read: responsibilities) of both internal and external government; hence the name. We think we’ll be a resource for Americans who in many cases will be hearing these concepts for the first time.
But our work would be ineffective, and any success temporary, if our only educational effort was aimed at adult Americans. Unfortunately, the societal degree of dependence on public education and the special interest indoctrination that occurs in public schools would constantly hamper our efforts. Every year, public schools are graduating students who have read the same union-approved text books. Every year, graduating students who believe the revisionist stories that foster not a sense of national pride in America, but instead teach us to be ashamed of our history.
Education of all Americans is critical, then, to the renewal of this Republic. With the support of our friends, families, and our loyal readers, and with the assistance of Divine Providence, we’ll work to meet this educational challenge.