Difference between revisions of "Education"

Revision as of 13:45, 28 September 2017

Public education is a shared responsibility in American federalism. The system of educational governance facilitates a division of power and control among the three planes of government, namely, federal, state, and local. Although the federal government has expanded its involvement in educational policy since the 1960s, public education remains the primary responsibility of state and local government.

State control in education is established by its own constitutional framework. In general, states handle a wide range of key educational issues, including compulsory attendance, teacher certification, curriculum standards, the operation of districts, graduation requirements, unions’ right to collective bargaining, and school funding. With federal funds accounting for somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of public school revenue in the last several decades, the K–12 budget typical constitutes one-third of the total state and local revenue. Due to the property taxpayers’ movement and court decisions on funding disparity among districts, a growing number of states play a primary fiscal role. In 1959, the average state share was only 38 percent of the K–12 budget.

Historically, the federal government has taken a permissive role in education that is consistent with Morton Grodzins’s notion of federalism as a “layer cake.” Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution specifies the “enumerated powers” that Congress enjoys, and the Tenth Amendment granted state autonomy in virtually all domestic affairs, including education. The dual structure was further maintained by local customs, practice, and belief. Observing the state-local relations in the New England townships in the mid nineteenth century, Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America wrote, “Thus it is true that the tax is voted by the legislature, but it is the township that apportions and collects it; the existence of a school is imposed, but the township builds it, pays for it, and directs it.” The division of power within the federal system was so strong that it continued to preserve state control over its internal affairs, including the de jure segregation of schools, many decades following the Civil War.

Federal involvement in education sharply increased during the Great Society era of the 1960s and the 1970s. Several events converged to shift the federal role from permissiveness to engagement. During the immediate post–World War II period, Congress enacted the G.I. Bill to enable veterans to receive a college education of their choice. The Cold War competition saw the passage of the National Defense Education Act in 1958 shortly after the Soviet Union’s satellite, Sputnik, successfully orbited Earth. At the same time, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court ruling on Brown v. Board of Education and the congressional enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act sharpened federal attention to the needs of disadvantaged students. In 1965, Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Despite several revisions and extension, Title I of the ESEA continues to allot federal funds to schools with a high concentration of low income students for supplemental instructional services. Over the years, federal educational programs have become an important component of the grant-in- aid system, providing supplemental services to economically disadvantaged children, racial and ethnic minorities, students with disabilities, high school dropouts, and English language learners.

As Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the federal government further expands its activities to promote educational accountability for all children. The federal law requires annual testing of students at the elementary grades in core subject areas, mandates the hiring of “highly qualified teachers” in classrooms by 2005–6, and grants state and local agencies substantial authority in taking “corrective actions” to turn around failing schools. Further, the law provides school choice to parents to take their children out of failing schools. Equally significant in terms of federal intervention is the legislative intent in closing the achievement gaps among racial/ethnic subgroups as well as income subgroups. These federal expectations are likely to shape the policy and practice at the state and local level.

In response to growing public concerns about school performance, as illuminated with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, state government has assumed visibly greater responsibility in driving educational reform. Recent state legislation and gubernatorial actions on educational accountability, choice, and the takeover of districts and schools provide a new empirical basis to rethink the balance of power between state and local government. A hybrid of state authority may have emerged to the effect that one now sees both centralizing and decentralizing tendencies occurring at the same time, often within the same state.

The decentralizing tendency is illuminated by an increasing number of states that rely on market-like competition as the driving force to raise student performance. The charter school reform represents the most extensive state effort to promote choice. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia operated a total of over 2,000 charter schools during 2001. Although charter schools are labeled as public schools, their renewable contracts are held accountable for outcome-based performance and are governed by state regulations regarding safety, health, dismissal, and civil rights. In return, charter schools enjoy substantial autonomy in setting teachers’ salaries and work conditions. School funding follows students to the charter schools, which are operated on a multiyear renewable contract. Further, only 2 states did not allow for home schooling in 2001. Nationwide, almost 900,000 school-age children are home schooled.

A seemingly centralizing tendency is suggested by the state enactment of takeover legislation over low-performing districts and schools. About half of the states allow state takeover of local school districts, permitting state officials to exert authority over a district in the case of “academic bankruptcy,” or woefully low-performing schools. State takeover legislation often enables the mayor to take over the local school system, as shown in Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York. The effectiveness of mayoral takeover has been facilitated by mayoral vision on outcome-based accountability, broad public dissatisfaction with “a crisis” in school performance over several years, the willingness of the state Republican leadership to work with the mayor, strong business support, and the weakened legitimacy of traditionally powerful unions.

Kenneth K. Wong

SEE ALSO: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; No Child Left Behind Act; School Districts