Congressman Steve Russell’s latest Waste Watch “report” proves the timeless maxim: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
In reviewing the June installment of Russell’s newsletter, News 9 emphasized and The Oklahoman championed Russell (R-Oklahoma) for his partially true criticism of the Obama administration’s school-improvement grant program (SIG). (Also, who would have thought the Veterans Administration exhibits wasteful habits?)
But it was the federal government itself that had already revealed both of those shortcomings, and the Office of the Inspector General offered recommendations for fixing the errors of the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs. Maybe because veterans’ issues are important to Russell, he judiciously concluded his report thus: “It is important that VBA follow these recommendations.”
Russell also claims to have found about $74 billion in wasted taxpayer money during the past 17 years. For instance, U.S. taxpayers provided $30.6 billion in Pell grants to 8.3 million students. Guess what the government had to spend in administrative costs?
Five bucks per student!
Waste Watch report lacks objectivity
One would think that an objective report would have praised such low overhead. Follow the footnotes in Russell’s 15-page report, however, and it is clear that government oversight documented the expenditures he criticizes. It is hard to see how a reasonable person would claim that Russell has evidence that these expenditures were wasteful.
Still, Russell’s response was to claim he has “introduced legislation that will remove the language authorizing administrative cost allowances relating to Pell Grants.”
Russell then claimed to have discovered an equally horrific abuse: Federal grants to universities include funding for indirect costs, i.e. paying for facilities and administrative costs. He condemned scandals such as the University of Michigan’s “shocking” expenditure of $8,905 on entertainment and travel and Georgetown University’s alleged overcharge of $4,797 on travel. For that reason, Russell is “introducing legislation that prohibits federal agencies from awarding discretionary grants to institutions of higher education that include indirect costs.”
A clear pattern of faux protection
The pattern is clear: Russell pretends that he’s protecting the taxpayers even when there is no problem. Which begs the question: How does he deal with federal innovations that could yield great benefits but require trial and error to tackle the complex dynamics of human behavior? For example, what about costs of efforts to encourage healthy nutrition and exercise?
It’s no secret that Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move was an experiment that could greatly improve the lives of children, but it had to wrestle with behaviors that have long-defied change. As early as 2006, Oklahoma writer Burkhard Bilger explained how difficult it was to negotiate patiently with the Bush administration while persuading students to eat a healthy diet. His New Yorker article documented the intertwined difficulties facing even the most affluent and progressive schools when coaxing kids to eat better.
Any realistic appraisal of the First Lady’s effort to improve nutrition, while also promoting exercise, would have to credit her for making progress on a seemingly intractable problem. Even Congressman Russell acknowledges,
At first glance, it would appear that the ‘Let’s Move’ program produced positive results. In 2008, US childhood obesity rates nationally were around 16.2 percent, and during the next 3 years, 18 states saw those rates begin a modest decline, falling in some states by as much as 5.5 percent.
The source for that finding is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Russell omits the part of the report that refers to Let’s Move and the conclusion that the program contributes to “a unique opportunity to bring together various stakeholders concerned about children’s health.” He counters that Let’s Move has failed to transform the total amount of exercise of all children and that “the changes made to school lunches have come at a cost.”
His sources for that conclusion were the National Review and the Washington Free Beacon. In turn, the sources of those august journals were New York’s Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake schools and California’s Laguna Beach United School District. Together, these affluent districts have nine schools.
An ideology of ‘nothing works’ never works
And that brings us to the congressman’s one valid complaint: that $7 billion in School Improvement Grants failed to improve student performance, and we should ask why.
The SIG experiment was inspired by the business-turnaround movement. It was based on the theory that improved instruction, principal leadership and accountability could provide a shortcut for turning around our highest-poverty schools. Believing that the problem was the lack of “High Expectations!” by veteran teachers, it stripped teachers of many of their most important due process rights. A teacher with a proven history of effectiveness could be forced to transfer merely for believing that high-stakes testing is bad policy.
As I’ve long explained, the OKCPS and the nation should conduct a “lessons learned” process and evaluate why the SIG failed. It must, however, be an honest, evidence-driven analysis. The study of our failures can’t be a publicity stunt to advance an ideology of “nothing works.”
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
