ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION

Chapter Fourteen: The Federal Level of Policy Making

Presented by Jacqueline Leedy-Chamberlain

Professor: Dr. Lauren Larsen

In this chapter, we will review the growth of federal power over education. While Washington previously contributed little to education, it now provides a plethora of programs and funding to schools across the nation. Of course, we will also discuss as we have previously, how Federal involvement in education has grown exponentially since the passage of NCLB.

Ch. 14: The Federal Level of Policy Making

Overview of Federal Educational Governance

Ch. 14: The Federal Level of Policy Making

Legal Framework

The federal government was largely absent from education until the middle of the 20th Century, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. After which, reliance on Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution was used.

Launch of Russian Sputnik speeds up rapid program for federal funding for training math, science and foreign language teachers under power which Constitution allows for defense of country.

Kennedy and Johnson pass the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965 relying on the power “to tax and spend for the general welfare.” Monies are governed by strict regulations.

Overview of Federal Educational Governance, cont.

Ch. 14: The Federal Level of Policy Making

Since the scope of the federal authority over public education is narrow, the government has moved cautiously in passing legislation governing education.

Scope of Federal Authority

Major Policy Actors at National Level

1. Governmental Policy Actors at the Federal Levela) Individuals: President, U.S. Secretary of Education, Chairs of the education

committees in Congressb) Groups: U.S. Department of Education, Congress, Federal courts2. Major Interest Groups Seeking to Influence Education Policyc) Education Interest Groups: American Association of School Administrators,

American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, National School Boards Association

d) Business Interest Groups: Business Roundtable, Committee for Economic Development, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

3. Major Foundations and Think Tanks Interested in Educatione) Foundations: Annie Casey Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, Danforth

Foundation, Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Spencer Foundationf) Think Tanks: American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, Economic

Policy Institute, Heritage Foundation

A History of Federal Involvement in Education

Early Semi-Silence of Washington

Smith-Hughes Act of 1917

1946- National School Lunch Act

Ch. 14: The Federal Level of Policy Making

•After World War II, finally see some initiatives for federal aid. All driven by value of equity.

•ESEA of 1972 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

•Title IX of Educational Amendments of 1972

•Public Law 94-142 – Education for All Handicapped Children Act

Washington Becomes More Interested in

Education

•Federal court decisions have also stimulated state legislatures and other governmental bodies to act.

•Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954

•Superintendents’ roles shifted to include being responsible for administering all court decisions and federal programs.

Courts, Politics, and Policy

A History of Federal Involvement in Education

Ch. 14: The Federal Level of Policy Making

Federal Uses of Funds to Influence Policy

• National Center for Education Statistics (implicitly suggests what it considers important in education).

• Presidents Regan, Bush, and Clinton have provided funding through block grants.

• Also using consultants to provide services to districts with special problems.

Use of the “Bully Pulpit to Influence Education

• The President’s use of his “bully pulpit” can be used to shape public opinion about schools (usually seemed geared to best suit their own party).

• A Nation at Risk was published after Regan commissioned educational leaders to figure out why schools were performing poorly.

The Politics of Federal Aid

• Each political party has its own approach to education.

• For example, Democrats introduced ESEA, and USDOE. While the Republicans passed NCLB.

The Impact of Federal Involvement on Politics

Ch. 14: The Federal Level of Policy Making

The Impact of Federal Involvement on Politics

Federal Courts and Politics

• Federal court decisions influence educational policy.

• Any court decision involves settling a dispute between two or more parties, which is why both parties want certain judges appointed to federal courts.

• Judiciary is not necessarily neutral when making decisions. For example from 1954-1980, federal courts repeatedly upheld desegregation policies, then in 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that if segregation is caused by demographics, districts can maintain segregated schools!

Ch. 14: The Federal Level of Policy Making

No Child Left Behind Many scholars and political scientists have

argued that NCLB dramatically changed federal education policy. One such political scientist, Patrick McGuinn argued that NCLB differs from ESEA because:

1. Broadens the scope of federal education policy

2. Shifts federal education policy from focus on inputs to outputs

3. Is far more prescriptive than previous laws

History of NCLBTimeline

1983-Nation at Risk published1987-Gallup polls showed 87% of Americans believed federal government should require state and local educational authorities to meet minimum national standards1989-G.W. Bush adopted 6 national goals that did not include national standards1994-Clinton backed Goals 20002002-NCLB passes by Congress

Ch. 14: The Federal Level of Policy Making

1. Reduce “achievement gap” between the academic performance of Euro-American and Asian American compared to African American and Hispanic students.

2. Requires states receiving federal funds under ESEA to set up standards-based testing program.

3. Teachers must become “highly qualified.”

4. Testing overhauls which are extensive, and require schools to make AYP.

5. Severe penalties enforced for schools who fail to perform.

Major Provisions of NCLB

Ch. 14: The Federal Level of Policy Making

NCLBStrengths Weaknesses

Achievement gap is now out in the open.

Forces schools and districts to monitor the performance of subgroups.

Will permit the development of database of student test scores.

Discourages districts and states from hiring under-qualified teachers.

Law makes it harder for educators to neglect professional responsibility.

Law has never been funded at levels originally promised.

AYP reflects only the absolute scores made by children (no value-added component).

Unrealistic goals for U.S. schools (i.e., 100% proficiency in reading and math by 2013).

Teaching to the test, other subject matter gets neglected.

This narrows the curriculum which may raise test scores at expense of providing quality education.

Ch. 14: The Federal Level of Policy Making

Since the mid-19th Century, the federal government has moved from playing a minor

role in education, to playing a much larger and more powerful role. Congress, as well as

the federal courts have all influenced education policy, and the trend seems that it will only continue with the passage of NCLB.

Conclusion