Education in National Politics

Abstract

The federal government plays a role in governing public school systems. Interestingly, federal aid does not amount to very much in comparison to state budget appropriations. Nevertheless, the oversight of Congress and the executive branch shows that the federal government maintains a vested interest in ensuring public school performance in the twenty-first century. As this paper will demonstrate, the role of the federal government, though limited in relative financial terms, remains powerful, if often conflicted and controversial.

Overview

One of the longest-standing political issues in the history of mankind has been education. Going as far back as the days of ancient Greece, governmental leaders have viewed the need for scholastic achievement as paramount to the survival of any society. As Aristotle wisely proffered, "All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth."

Indeed, the importance of education to a society cannot be overstated. An educated public means a stronger workforce and a more powerful economy. Advances in research and science, industrial entrepreneurship, and even the arts and humanities all owe their progress to the classroom.

For this reason, governments dedicate a considerable portion of yearly budgets to ensuring that children receive the best possible education. They understand that education is one of the most pressing, yet daunting, of the political issues they face. Public education, after all, involves millions of children and their families. The idea that American public schools could falter and fail to adequately prepare students for a world that depends on high technology and advanced science for everyday life is a fear that remains latent in any leader.

For this reason, each leader on each level feels it is incumbent upon government to take a keen interest in student performance. There are a variety of methods employed to ensure that schools are meeting the needs of their students, including surveys, performance-based incentives, and standardized testing. Each of these courses of action has proven popular as part of overall "education reform" programs. At the same time, each has also generated political controversy.

Regardless of the form of response to perceived school shortcomings, the issue's broad-reaching implications make education a high priority. Education is not simply a matter of grades and classes. Each public school district employs hundreds, if not thousands, of people. It is difficult to tell, sometimes, who is in charge, as superintendents answer to school boards and other local officials. Oversight and the application of regulations come from the states as well. States are also the ones who appropriate the majority of aid to local school systems to supplement local revenues.

Even the federal government plays a role in governing public school systems. Interestingly, federal aid does not amount to very much in comparison to state budget appropriations. Nevertheless, the oversight of Congress and the executive branch shows that the federal government maintains a vested interest in ensuring public school performance in the twenty-first century. As this paper will demonstrate, the role of the federal government, though limited in relative financial terms, remains powerful, if often conflicted and controversial.

Education, Politics & the Late Twentieth Century. In 1983, the US Department of Education's National Commission on Excellence in Education released a report known as A Nation at Risk, which painted an alarming picture of the state of public education in the United States. The authors condemned what they saw as a "unilateral educational disarmament," and called on leaders to take critical steps to supply the resources necessary to ensure that each American student not just achieves academic success, but that the country as a whole would regain the mantle of an intellectual world leader (US Department of Education, 1995). Among the recommendations made by that group would be mandates that each school system's students become fully competent in basic skills like reading, writing, mathematics, and foreign languages. The primary tool of enforcement would be standardized testing, which would be used to help gauge student performance in each of these subject areas.

A Nation at Risk set off a national debate and lit the fire behind a nationwide call for reform of what many believed to be an increasingly broken-down public education system. President Ronald Reagan and his successor, George H. W. Bush, sought the establishment of (and ultimately the means to achieve) broad performance goals for schools. Bush's 1991 "America 2000" proposal, which was not adopted by Congress, even called for a voluntary system of standardized tests. Still, no true reform had taken place by this time, despite national fervor over this issue.

In 1994, however, the call to arms resulted in major change. President Bill Clinton signed the Improving America's Schools Act, requiring states to create and implement their own content and performance standards for K-12 schools. It also set timelines for states to establish those benchmarks. Unfortunately, the act, which was in fact a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, did not enforce those deadlines. The American Federation of Teachers noted that three years later, only 17 states had clear standards in English, math, social studies, and science (Rudalevige, 2003).

The Improving America's Schools Act, which demanded changes to curricula and school operations (such as classroom size and teacher qualifications), was at best tepidly received. Some feared that the increased federal and state controls required would remove teacher autonomy and thus drive away educators from underperforming schools (particularly those in poor neighborhoods), where standards would be hardest to meet. Concerns also circulated that administrators would be unable and even unwilling to use additional resources to shrink classroom sizes to meet the new standards.

However, a major study of teacher and administrator behavior as a reaction to the act's impositions, which was conducted over a seven-year period, showed the opposite reaction. Contrary to prevalent fears, teachers did not overwhelmingly leave schools that had large populations of low-income and minority students (the school districts that were likely to fail to reach such new standards). They were, however, receiving more hours for professional development than they were before the law's passage. The survey results also showed that classroom sizes were being reduced, indicating that administrators found ways to comply with the new regulations wherever possible (Viadero, 2007).

Did the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 truly effect change among school systems? The findings of the aforementioned study do not necessarily indicate that the answer is a definitive "yes." Rather, they suggest that the new requirements and standards imposed on schools did have an impact on teacher and administrator attitudes concerning student performance. The nature of this impact is somewhat vague, as the study focused on teacher and administrator responses to certain survey questions. At best, it is safe to say that the act raised the stakes on education reform and included teachers and administrators as central figures in the ongoing effort to rebuild the American educational system.

No Child Left Behind. In 2001, President George W. Bush raised the bar on education reform. Using the further reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as the groundwork, he introduced the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The focus of this proposal was to push for broad gains in student achievement and, at the same time, hold states and local school systems accountable for failure to achieve those gains.

The first major component of NCLB was, of course, the standardized test. States were required to test children annually, from grade three through eight, on the subjects of reading and mathematics. Beginning in 2007–08, students in elementary, middle, and high school were tested at least once per level in the field of science. Finally, a sample of fourth and eighth grade students from each state were required to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress program in reading and math, the results of which were to provide points of comparison for states.

The second component of NCLB was the accountability of states and school systems to meet the standards set forth by federal law. As the NCLB was the agency of oversight of Title I (the program that provides educational funding for disadvantaged districts), an underperforming district that fails to meet federal and state goals two years in a row was required to both receive additional technical resources and give students in that school the option to transfer to another school in pursuit of better opportunities.

The third major element of the NCLB was the requirement that teachers be "highly qualified" for their posts. As was the case in NCLB's predecessor frameworks, teachers were considered the ones who deliver curricula and issue grades accordingly. Therefore, their proficiency in the subject matter was considered paramount.

Additionally, the NCLB refocused Title I so that federal dollars were more efficiently spent on helping poor students. In doing so, however, the act also helped states and administrations spend federal dollars with a larger degree of flexibility than before ("No Child Left Behind," 2011).

Despite the controversy and politics that is inevitable in large-scale policymaking (particularly in education policymaking), NCLB was at first embraced on both sides of the aisle. During the bill's signature into law, President Bush, a conservative Republican, was flanked by Senator Edward Kennedy, a liberal Democrat. Educators, administrators, and countless observers all embraced the ideals set forth in NCLB, as the theme of the act was to help ailing districts rise to the level of excellence that wealthier districts enjoy. In short, NCLB was designed to create a level playing field for all schools.

Assessing and Ending NCLB. In many ways, NCLB met many of the goals it defined for itself, in far less time than anticipated. Poorer schools showed marked improvement in student accomplishment, particularly among minority students. Reading and math skills improved to record levels among elementary school students, and the performance gap between wealthy and poor children seemed to have shrunk. Spending on education increased nearly 30 percent between 2001 and 2007, and spending on NCLB programs increased more than 40 percent in that time (US Department of Education, 2007). Four years after passage of NCLB, nearly three out of four schools met "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) benchmarks as stipulated by the law.

At the same time, much had been offered in the way of criticism of the NCLB. Although 72 percent of schools were making adequate yearly progress in 2007, continuous improvement had proven elusive for many schools, and by 2010 the proportion of schools making AYP was down to 62 percent — fewer than two-thirds. In 2007, Congressman George Miller (D–California), then chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, commented: "We didn't get it all right when we enacted No Child Left Behind," adding that the law "is not fair, not flexible and not adequately funded" (Devarics, 2007). The latter of these complaints were echoed repeatedly by other educators, politicians, and observers. Efforts to reauthorize the law centered around trying to revise it to loosen the rigid AYP requirements; opponents called this move a retreat from accountability.

President Barack Obama, who had campaigned on a promise to rewrite NCLB, allowed states to apply for waivers to the legislation after Congress was unable to rewrite it. Although President Obama praised NCLB's goals, he critiqued the legislation for imposing reforms that fell short of meeting those goals. In December 2015, Obama effectively ended NCLB when he signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the NCLB's bipartisan successor. ESSA shifts responsibility for school performance from the federal government to state governments, and requires states to identify and work with schools in need of extra help based on academic performance, graduation rates, underperforming subgroup data, and other criteria. States must also report on college enrollment and set academic standards appropriate for preparing students for college. ESSA also increases the availability of high quality preschools, and ends NCLB's accountability system based on students' reading and math proficiency.

School Choice and Vouchers. In 2018, the administration of President Donald Trump released a proposed fiscal-year 2019 budget that includes a $1.1 billion investment to expand "school choice" through funding private-school voucher programs and other state-level initiatives. Private-school voucher programs are already active in some states and Washington, DC. These programs allow parents to use state and local funds to pay for or offset private school tuition. Supporters of voucher programs say that vouchers allow parents greater freedom to make decisions about their children's education. Critics say that vouchers take funds away from public school systems, thus increasing segregation and achievement gaps without also improving student performance.

Conclusions. Countless issues face governmental leaders each day. The federal government is faced with economic development, environmental protection, foreign policy, security concerns, and public health, among others. Each of these individual concerns are complex, controversial, and pivotal to the well-being of the American way of life, and as such, demand great attention from legislators. Indeed, political leadership very often entails giving a multitude of issues equal light and focus, as if each concern is a top priority.

On the state level, a myriad of important matters also weigh heavily on the minds and agendas of leaders. Many of these issues are similar to those facing federal legislators — the economy, health care, taxation, public safety, and environmental protection are among them, each commanding respect as paramount agenda items.

Locally, issues may not seem as enormous in comparison to such broad topics as foreign relations, multi-trillion-dollar budgets, and immigration reform, but they have significance within the community — pensions and unfunded liability, local taxation, roadway repair, and the maintenance of public services weigh heavily on the minds of city councilors, selectmen, mayors and other public officials, as they do for the residents themselves.

Still, no politician would ever fail to address the 800-pound gorilla in the room as one of his or her top priorities as a leader. Public education is an explosive issue for legislators and executives of any ideology or party, with liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans alike clamoring for America to have the best educational system in the world.

Of course, there is a difference between evoking such time-honored rhetorical statements as "children are our greatest natural resource" and implementing truly effective public education policy. More often than not, this difference boils down to two major factors: money and autonomy.

One of the most audible complaints about education reform over the latter twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has been about the unfunded mandate. It is not unreasonable, critics say, to ask school districts to improve student performance by shrinking classrooms, provide increased professional development for teachers and educators, and reduce the size of the achievement gap between wealthy and poor school districts. However, they add, it is unfair to ask that such changes occur without a significant infusion of federal, state, and local money. Parties have attempted to sue the federal government, for example, for imposing the lofty goals of No Child Left Behind on states and local school systems to improve student performance without simultaneously providing the significant financial investment that would be required to meet those goals.

Adding insult to injury, according to skeptics of federal education reform efforts, is the fact that political agencies and leaders do not just apply these mandates without the proper funds to make them happen. Opponents had also complained that NCLB and its predecessors also interfered in the education process, causing more harm than good. After all, the federal government contributes a relatively small sum (when compared to the local and state contributions) to local districts to improve student test scores, mandate teacher and administrator training, shrink classrooms, and increase the quality of math, science, and reading lessons taught in schools. As a result, many individuals felt that emphasis on standardized testing, for example, impinges unnecessarily on the classroom environment, taking away from essential curricula in order to make room for test preparation coursework. Unions representing teachers also register their concerns that policy foci on teacher qualification and performance-based bonus systems constitute an undue burden on educators as they handle the already difficult task of educating children.

Naturally, there is room for improvement, and as each shortcoming that has surfaced in the education reform effort becomes manifest, it is likely that legislators and agency administrators will address those issues one way or another. Of course, the system will evolve, presenting more concerns and calls for change. Still, public education will likely remain one of the top issue areas for national leaders for many years to come. National education policy, therefore, will continue to be a learning process.

Terms & Concepts

Education Reform: Political and social movement to revise and update the public school system.

No Child Left Behind: 2001 law holding public schools accountable for meeting certain standards based on a series of key indicators.

Performance-Based Incentives: Salary increases and bonuses offered to educators for successful accomplishment of federal and state performance benchmarks.

Standardized Testing: Examinations issued by federal, state, and local agencies to assess student performance in varying subject areas.

Unfunded Mandate: Policy requiring affected parties to expend certain levels of funding without compensatory state or federal aid.

Bibliography

Charles, J. B. (February 12, 2018). Trump proposes unprecedented expansion of school choice. Governing. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from www.governing.com/topics/education/gov-trump-doe-education-budget-schools-states.html.

Del Guidice, M., & Luna, R. (2014). Cut to the core. Publishers Weekly, 261, 20–21. Retrieved October 9, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=97460938

Devarics, C. (2007). Congress considers fixes to No Child Left Behind. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 24, 14–15. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27539707&site=ehost-live

Harris, D. M. (2012). Leveraging change via competition: The promise and limitations of Race to the Top. JEP: eJournal of Education Policy, 1–7. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90374261

Hoff, D. J. (2007). NEA leads opposition to law's renewal.Education Week, 27, 22–25. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=27530561&site=ehost-live

Horsford, S. D., Jean-Marie, G., Tran, N., Carpenter, B., Adams, C., Schares, D., & Sanders, K. N. (2017). Special issue introduction: school leadership and the Every Student Succeeds Act: dilemmas and possibilities in an era of inequality. Journal of School Leadership, 27(5), 618–621. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=127933718&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Liebtag, E. (2013). Moving forward with Common Core State Standards implementation: Possibilities and potential problems. Journal of Curriculum & Instruction, 7, 56–70. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92612449

Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 285–324. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86258753

Moscinski, D. (2007). Proficiency for all? American School Board Journal, 194, 28–29. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26963211&site=ehost-live

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1995). A nation at risk. US Department of Education Archives. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.

No Child Left Behind. (2011, September 19). Education Week. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/no-child-left-behind/

Petrilli, M. J. (2014). Common core: Too little change, not too much. School Administrator, 71, 27–31. Retrieved October 9, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=97765000

Rudalevige, A. (2003). The politics of No Child Left Behind. Education Next, 3. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3346601.html.

Samuelsen, S. (2001, December). Student testing: The stakes are rising. National Conference of State Legislatures Magazine. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/901test.htm.

Sparks, S. (2007). ED gives final report on Title I. Education Daily, 40, 1–3.

State board sets performance-pay rules. (2007). Education Daily, 40, 6.

Strobach, K. V. (2018). Implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act: update and next steps. Communique (0164775X), 46(5), 9–11. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=127233092&site=ehost-live&scope=site

US Department of Education. (2007). No Child Left Behind Act is working. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/nclbworking.pdf.

US Office of Management and Budget. (Fiscal year 2019). Efficient, effective, accountable: an American budget. Budget of the U.S. government. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf.

Viadero, D. (2007). No easy answers about NCLB's effect on "poverty gap." Education Week, 27, 12. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27530557&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Casey, L. M. (2013). The will to quantify: The "bottom line" in the market model of education reform. Teachers College Record, 115, 1–7. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90238826

DeBoer, J. (2012). Twentieth-century American education reform in the global context. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 416–435. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=78936115

Kessinger, T. A. (2011). Efforts toward educational reform in the United States since 1958. American Educational History Journal, 38(1/2), 263–276. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=64872924

Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: the transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 285–324. Retrieved October 9, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database Research Starters–Education. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e0h&AN=86258753

Samuels, C. A. (2017). Spec. ed. rules a trust issue for advocates. Education Week, 37(11), 1–15. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=126209003&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Shannon, P. (2012). School reform in the United States: Frames and representations. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 109–118. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=70165180