Plan Would Keep Money Coming In

U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton rattled the education bureaucracy the other day. He proposes to remove regulatory strings from billions of dollars federal government sends to local public schools.

After a brief but sharp debate, the Senate approved Gorton’s scheme last week, 51-49. Next it goes to the House. But President Clinton threatens a veto.

This is revolutionary. It’s similar, in concept, to welfare reform. Here’s the background: Public schools get 95 percent of their funding from local and state taxes. Only 5 percent comes from federal government. To the distress of school administrators, federal money comes with detailed regulations and paperwork requirements. These requirements are (a.) inflexible, (b.) costly to administer and (c.) unresponsive to differences from one locality to another.

Federal education programs cost $100 billion, but only $13 billion reaches local school districts. Bureaucracy’s expensive.

The federal programs focus on aid to bilingual, poor, delinquent, migrant, handicapped and Native American students. They fund violence- and drug-prevention programs, literacy training for parents, vocational education, teacher training and the Goals 2000 reform program.

Gorton’s proposal would keep federal dollars coming - for now. Gorton says schools actually would get a billion or so more because federal bureaucracy would get less. Local schools could keep spending the money exactly as they do now, they could improve the programs in ways federal rules don’t allow, or they could shift federal dollars to enhancements that are a higher local priority. Gorton contends local schools know their needs better than federal authorities do.

His proposal has obvious appeal. And, it has two weaknesses:

If federal funding switches to generic block grants, it may not last. Politicians prefer targeted programs that they can take credit for and control. Federal “revenue sharing” to cities and counties died for this very reason.

Most of the federal programs resulted from historic inadequacies in services to disadvantaged kids. Without federal mandates, would the inadequacies return?

That’s a serious question. But Gorton raises another: If federal programs actually are helping the disadvantaged, why is there a nationwide uproar about educational mediocrity and a growing exodus from public schools, especially in the inner cities?

Gorton inserted his proposal as an appropriations-bill amendment and it received no hearings. It ought to be a separate bill, as welfare reform was, and it deserves thorough debate.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board