Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, June 12, 1995 TAG: 9506130010
SECTION: EDITORIALS PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RALPH E. ANCIL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Supporters of the program reportedly want Virginia to participate in it for three main reasons. First, it supposedly sends a signal that Virginia believes in high academic standards. Second, because nearly everyone else is participating, we should, too. Third, there is no further federal regulation involved.
But these reasons are scarcely credible.
First, it is naive to believe that the acceptance of federal money translates automatically into improved standards, an opinion that contradicts all of recent federal spending history. (One need only think of all that federal money spent on the arts.) This is the old argument that improvement always comes if you throw enough money at it. It would be nearer the mark to suggest that the acceptance of federal monies will likely lower academic standards and performance.
The second argument, as state Sen. Elliot Schewel, D-Lynchburg, put it, is that one can't believe the ``48 participating states are dumb as hell'' and only Virginia is ``smart and judicious.'' Why not? The other states may have various incentives to participate, but that hardly makes them prudent. Does Schewel believe that being a majority is equal to being right? The ``let's join the lemmings' march to the sea'' simply can't be taken as a serious-minded and responsible argument.
Third, it must be willful blindness to believe that because there is no immediate set of regulations, there will be none in the future. The pattern of federal encroachments is obvious: Tie the victims to your purse strings, then dictate their actions. Once the victims are completely addicted, you can control the program completely. The federal government has learned from W.C. Fields: ``Never give a sucker an even break.''
There is simply no constitutionally justified place in education for the federal government. And in an age of massive federal deficits and state cutbacks in spending, it is surely unpardonable and irresponsible to worsen matters by increasing state dependence on the federal dole.
In this context, Allen's fears - that this will lead to further federal intrusion and regulation of the state in matters of education - are eminently reasonable and prudent. He should be supported in his efforts to resist the siren song of federal ``help.''
Even more, to improve Virginia's academic standards and the quality of education in the state, Allen should take steps to reduce still further the state's dependence on federal education dollars. Ultimately, the goal should be to kick the habit of federal dependence for education completely.
Ralph E. Ancil is a consultant with the Commonwealth Foundation of Virginia, a nonprofit educational organization.
by CNB