Such block funds tend to be among the first federal monies to be slashed during periods of economic hardship, because government officials often argue that the cuts will not eliminate individual programs.

But Education Department officials indicated that in the early years of the Reagan Administration, the bulk of the individually-funded programs were converted into these block funds.

According to education experts, the potential exists in such "flexible distribution plans" for civil rights abuses and corruption, if officials simply give away the money without proper supervision.

"Clearly, we're not going to give out $24 billion with no strings attached," said Melinda Kitchell of the Department of Education. "Without some kind of accountability, you're just handing out the dollars."

One education official said that increasing accountability was high on the list of the department's priorities. The Rappaport plan could either increase this accountability by trimming bureaucracy, or decrease it by loosening federal oversight without compensating at the local level.

"If there is no federal role and there is no federal oversight, I don't know if that's best for the children," the official said. Another criticism levelled at the "eliminate-the-middleman" proposals such as Rappaport's is that the middleman is simply overrated. "When you get to the Education Department, there isn't a lot of bureaucracy," said Merkowitz."

In fact, said Merkowitz, one problem the Education Department has encountered is a dearth of bureaucrats. A lack of inspectors and auditors has led, in the last few years, to a wave of student loan defaults.

The "bureaucratic layer after layer" which Rappaport condemns is actually thinner than it should be, Merkowitz said, especially in the area of student loans, a main aspect of the Education Department's activity.

"Proposals to cut bureaucracy in the Education Department seem a little misdirected," Merkowitz said.