Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 - Revision history

Admin at 19:27, 27 August 2018

2018-08-27T19:27:37Z

Admin at 19:24, 27 August 2018

2018-08-27T19:24:24Z

Admin at 03:09, 4 July 2018

2018-07-04T03:09:54Z

Pklt292 at 18:39, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T18:39:49Z

Pklt292 at 18:34, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T18:34:59Z

Show changes

Morgannoel18 at 08:33, 22 October 2017

2017-10-22T08:33:37Z

Nicole: Created page with "This legislation expanded the role of the federal government in matters of education policy. Heretofore education policy was the realm of state and local governments, except f..."

2017-01-24T22:44:14Z

Created page with "This legislation expanded the role of the federal government in matters of education policy. Heretofore education policy was the realm of state and local governments, except f..."

New page

This legislation expanded the role of the federal government in matters of education policy. Heretofore education policy was the realm of state and local governments, except for piecemeal federal government assistance beginning with the Morrill Act (1862).

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) constituted a basic part in what President Lyndon B. Johnson articulated as the “Great Society.” Previous congressional bills to assist education with funds for school construction and teachers’ salaries failed because of controversy about segregated schools and church-state issues regarding parochial schools. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addressed the segregation issue and this proposal focused assistance upon school districts with many children from low-income families rather than on buildings and teachers’ salaries.

Much of the credit for the substance and legislative success of the bill went to President Johnson, the “teacher who became president.” He requested action on a proposed bill in an education message on January 12, 1965. The bill (H.R. 2362) received swift and favorable action in the House, gaining committee approval on March 8 and passage on a roll call by the whole House on March 26 (263–153). In less than three weeks the Senate approved the bill without changes, adopting it on April 9 with a favorable vote (73–18) as Public Law 89-10.

The law provided $1.1 billion to assist school districts with impoverished children. The provisions of the law were intended to affect schools in over 90 percent of the nation’s counties. Federal grants went to states that distributed the money to school districts according to the number of low-income (less than $2,000 per year) families served. Additional provisions of the law authorized grants for textbooks and library material, community educational centers, educational research, and funding to strengthen departments of education in the states.

The act paved the way for the federal government to intrude increasingly in education with Head Start, the Higher Education Act, the Bilingual Education Act, the Native American Education Act, the Education for all Handicapped Children Act (later named the Individuals with Disabilities Act), and the establishment of the Department of Education as a cabinet-level entity.

ESEA continued as the federal government’s flagship aid program for disadvantaged students. A significant restructuring of the act occurred in 2001 with the passage of President George Bush’s proposed No Child Left Behind Act, which incorporated substantial student testing and accountability requirements into the law. Adopted with compromises by a variety of interests, the reauthorized law received bipartisan support with approval in the House by a 281–41 vote on December 13 and approval less than a week later in the Senate on an 87–10 vote. The president signed the bill on January 8, 2002.

While the federal government plays a significant part in education policy oversight, its fiscal contribution continues to be small. The National Center for Education Statistics estimated in 2003 that states supply 50 percent of funding for elementary and secondary schools, local districts supplied 43 percent, and 7 percent comes from the national government.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
''Congress and the Nation'', vols. 2, 3 and 4 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1969, 1973, 1977); U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, “Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2000–2001,” NCES 2003-362, May (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
|}

==== Jack R. Van Der Slik ====

SEE ALSO: [[Education]]; [[Morrill Act of 1862]]; [[No Child Left Behind Act]]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 One of the most significant consequences of ESEA was the centralization of education policymaking from the local level to the state and federal levels. From 1965 to 1975, federal funds for elementary and secondary education more than doubled.   In addition, between 1960 and 1985, the percentage of total education spending provided by the national government grew from 8 percent to 16 percent. Over the same period, the share of local spending dipped from 51 percent to 31 percent while the state share increased from 41 percent to 55 percent.   Eligibility for federal education funds was often conditioned on the provision of state matching funds, the creation of central implementing offices, and the collection of a variety of statistical information which necessitated that state education agencies expand their size and activities and become more institutionalized. This was a clear objective of ESEA, as the original legislation contained funding for the agencies to build up their administrative capacity so that they would be better equipped to handle their new, federally imposed, responsibilities. Due in no small part to the centralization and professionalization of state education agencies mandated by New Deal and Great Society programs, the number of independent school districts in the U.S. dropped from approximately 150,000 in 1900 to 15,000 in 1993.   Administrative centralization at the state level also ultimately made education more susceptible to federal regulation by reducing the number of decision-making foci. In practice, centralization also meant that local decision-makers had less and less flexibility in how they ran their schools.
-Initially, ESEA was intended to provide additional resources to disadvantaged students with little federal involvement as to how the resources were utilized by state and local education authorities. Over time, however, federal legislative enactments, bureaucratic regulations, and court mandates in education became increasingly numerous and prescriptive, and federal influence over schools grew significantly. Between 1964 and 1976, for example, the number of pages of federal legislation affecting education increased from 80 to 360, while the number of federal regulations increased from 92 in 1965 to nearly 1,000 in 1977.   As a result, the political debate over ESEA shifted from whether the federal government had an obligation to promote educational opportunity to the effectiveness of these efforts. By the 1980s, growing skepticism about the orientation and efficacy of federal education programs led to a backlash against ESEA and fueled a reform movement that promoted administrative flexibility, parental choice, and outcome standards. As part of his “New Federalism” program, Reagan gained passage in 1981 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) which dramatically reformed many of the provisions of ESEA. The changes reduced the amount of federal funding for education by almost 20 percent, simplified eligibility requirements, and increased flexibility for states in the use of federal education funds.
+Initially, ESEA was intended to provide additional resources to disadvantaged students with little federal involvement as to how the resources were utilized by state and local education authorities. Over time, however, federal legislative enactments, bureaucratic regulations, and court mandates in education became increasingly numerous and prescriptive, and federal influence over schools grew significantly. Between 1964 and 1976, for example, the number of pages of federal legislation affecting education increased from 80 to 360, while the number of federal regulations increased from 92 in 1965 to nearly 1,000 in 1977.   As a result, the political debate over ESEA shifted from whether the federal government had an obligation to promote educational opportunity to the effectiveness of these efforts. By the 1980's, growing skepticism about the orientation and efficacy of federal education programs led to a backlash against ESEA and fueled a reform movement that promoted administrative flexibility, parental choice, and outcome standards. As part of his “New Federalism” program, Reagan gained passage in 1981 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) which dramatically reformed many of the provisions of ESEA. The changes reduced the amount of federal funding for education by almost 20 percent, simplified eligibility requirements, and increased flexibility for states in the use of federal education funds.
 Republican efforts to roll back federal influence in education ran into fresh evidence that American schools were in very poor shape. A widely-publicized 1983 report on the state of American education, A Nation at Risk, painted a dire portrait of the country’s public schools and highlighted how far American students lagged behind their foreign counterparts on academic achievement tests. It emphasized that the dire performance of American students was a matter of national security, both in our Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union and our competition in the global economy. The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA under President Bill Clinton, the Improving America’s Schools Act, marked a significant shift in federal education policy, as it pushed states to adopt academic standards, testing and accountability for school performance. These reforms were given more teeth with the next ESEA reauthorization, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. The centerpiece of NCLB was the requirement, that states, as a condition of accepting federal funds, test all of their children in grades 3-8 in reading and math every year (and science at different points in time), make the results of their tests publicly available with breakdowns by school, race, and level of poverty, and undertake a series of corrective actions to fix failing schools. (See “No Child Left Behind” in this volume.)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was a central component of President [[Johnson, Lyndon B.|Lyndon Johnson’s]] war on poverty and one of the key legislative achievements of the Great Society. ESEA marked the first major incursion of the federal government into K-12 education policy, an area that historically had been the domain of states and localities, and initiated a new era of federal involvement in school reform. At the heart of ESEA was a powerful equity rationale for federal government activism to promote greater economic and social opportunity. Education received new prominence in America after World War II, as high school completion became the norm and as the GI Bill spurred a dramatic increase in college enrollment. Education gained additional salience in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown ruling on school segregation and the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik (the first orbiting satellite) which underscored the importance of education (and in particular science and engineering).
+The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was a central component of President [[Johnson, Lyndon B.|Lyndon Johnson’s]] war on poverty and one of the key legislative achievements of the [[Great Society]]. ESEA marked the first major incursion of the federal government into K-12 education policy, an area that historically had been the domain of states and localities, and initiated a new era of federal involvement in school reform. At the heart of ESEA was a powerful equity rationale for federal government activism to promote greater economic and social opportunity. Education received new prominence in America after World War II, as high school completion became the norm and as the GI Bill spurred a dramatic increase in college enrollment. Education gained additional salience in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown ruling on school segregation and the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik (the first orbiting satellite) which underscored the importance of education (and in particular science and engineering).
-Johnson capitalized on the growing public awareness of school inequalities and the large Democratic majority in Congress following the 1964 election to push for a massive education bill.  LBJ declared a “war on poverty” and thrust the quest for [[Civil Rights|civil rights]] to the center of his domestic agenda. He identified education as the key to economic and social mobility, but argued that too many schools lacked the resources to provide the necessary skills to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. From the outset, however, Johnson and his advisors were cognizant of the political obstacles—intense opposition to government support for integration, Catholic schools, and centralized administration—that had defeated previous attempts to expand the federal role in education. What had become known as the “three R’s”—race, religion, and the reds—remained a substantial barrier. The passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, however—and particularly Title VI which outlawed the allocation of federal funds to segregated programs—would prevent federal education bills from becoming entangled with racial issues as they had in 1956 and 1960.
+Johnson capitalized on the growing public awareness of school inequalities and the large Democratic majority in [[U.S. Congress|Congress]] following the 1964 election to push for a massive education bill.  LBJ declared a “war on poverty” and thrust the quest for [[Civil Rights|civil rights]] to the center of his domestic agenda. He identified education as the key to economic and social mobility, but argued that too many schools lacked the resources to provide the necessary skills to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. From the outset, however, Johnson and his advisors were cognizant of the political obstacles—intense opposition to government support for integration, Catholic schools, and centralized administration—that had defeated previous attempts to expand the federal role in education. What had become known as the “three R’s”—race, religion, and the reds—remained a substantial barrier. The passage of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964|Civil Rights Act in 1964]], however—and particularly Title VI which outlawed the allocation of federal funds to segregated programs—would prevent federal education bills from becoming entangled with racial issues as they had in 1956 and 1960.
 And LBJ’s ESEA proposal ultimately sent federal aid to poor children regardless of the type of school they attended (whether public or private). This plan had the advantage of spreading money around to a majority of congressional districts, to public and private school children, and to state education agencies for implementation purposes, thereby undercutting most of the potential political opposition to the program. By all accounts, President Johnson’s legislative savvy and active lobbying on the bill’s behalf were crucial to its passage. The bill was supported by large majorities in both chambers, passing in 1965 by a vote of 263-153 in the House and 73-18 in the Senate. President Johnson remarked at the time that in one year Congress “did more for the wonderful cause of education in America than all the previous 176 regular sessions of Congress did, put together.” (The Higher Education Act was signed into law the same year.)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was a central component of President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty and one of the key legislative achievements of the Great Society. ESEA marked the first major incursion of the federal government into K-12 education policy, an area that historically had been the domain of states and localities, and initiated a new era of federal involvement in school reform. At the heart of ESEA was a powerful equity rationale for federal government activism to promote greater economic and social opportunity. Education received new prominence in America after World War II, as high school completion became the norm and as the GI Bill spurred a dramatic increase in college enrollment. Education gained additional salience in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown ruling on school segregation and the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik (the first orbiting satellite) which underscored the importance of education (and in particular science and engineering).
+The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was a central component of President [[Johnson, Lyndon B.|Lyndon Johnson’s]] war on poverty and one of the key legislative achievements of the Great Society. ESEA marked the first major incursion of the federal government into K-12 education policy, an area that historically had been the domain of states and localities, and initiated a new era of federal involvement in school reform. At the heart of ESEA was a powerful equity rationale for federal government activism to promote greater economic and social opportunity. Education received new prominence in America after World War II, as high school completion became the norm and as the GI Bill spurred a dramatic increase in college enrollment. Education gained additional salience in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown ruling on school segregation and the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik (the first orbiting satellite) which underscored the importance of education (and in particular science and engineering).
-Johnson capitalized on the growing public awareness of school inequalities and the large Democratic majority in Congress following the 1964 election to push for a massive education bill.  LBJ declared a “war on poverty” and thrust the quest for civil rights to the center of his domestic agenda. He identified education as the key to economic and social mobility, but argued that too many schools lacked the resources to provide the necessary skills to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. From the outset, however, Johnson and his advisors were cognizant of the political obstacles—intense opposition to government support for integration, Catholic schools, and centralized administration—that had defeated previous attempts to expand the federal role in education. What had become known as the “three R’s”—race, religion, and the reds—remained a substantial barrier. The passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, however—and particularly Title VI which outlawed the allocation of federal funds to segregated programs—would prevent federal education bills from becoming entangled with racial issues as they had in 1956 and 1960.
+Johnson capitalized on the growing public awareness of school inequalities and the large Democratic majority in Congress following the 1964 election to push for a massive education bill.  LBJ declared a “war on poverty” and thrust the quest for [[Civil Rights|civil rights]] to the center of his domestic agenda. He identified education as the key to economic and social mobility, but argued that too many schools lacked the resources to provide the necessary skills to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. From the outset, however, Johnson and his advisors were cognizant of the political obstacles—intense opposition to government support for integration, Catholic schools, and centralized administration—that had defeated previous attempts to expand the federal role in education. What had become known as the “three R’s”—race, religion, and the reds—remained a substantial barrier. The passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, however—and particularly Title VI which outlawed the allocation of federal funds to segregated programs—would prevent federal education bills from becoming entangled with racial issues as they had in 1956 and 1960.
 And LBJ’s ESEA proposal ultimately sent federal aid to poor children regardless of the type of school they attended (whether public or private). This plan had the advantage of spreading money around to a majority of congressional districts, to public and private school children, and to state education agencies for implementation purposes, thereby undercutting most of the potential political opposition to the program. By all accounts, President Johnson’s legislative savvy and active lobbying on the bill’s behalf were crucial to its passage. The bill was supported by large majorities in both chambers, passing in 1965 by a vote of 263-153 in the House and 73-18 in the Senate. President Johnson remarked at the time that in one year Congress “did more for the wonderful cause of education in America than all the previous 176 regular sessions of Congress did, put together.” (The Higher Education Act was signed into law the same year.)

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 Last updated: February 2018
-SEE ALSO: [[Education]]; [[Morrill Act of 1862]]; [[No Child Left Behind Act]]
+SEE ALSO: [[Education]];  [[No Child Left Behind Act]]
-______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
+_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    As cited in Joel Spring, The Sorting Machine: National Educational Policy Since 1945. (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1976) 225.
    National Center For Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 2000 (Washington, DC: 2000) 395.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:33, 22 October 2017
Line 20:		Line 20:

	==== Jack R. Van Der Slik ====		==== Jack R. Van Der Slik ====
		+
		+	Last updated: 2006

	SEE ALSO: [[Education]]; [[Morrill Act of 1862]]; [[No Child Left Behind Act]]		SEE ALSO: [[Education]]; [[Morrill Act of 1862]]; [[No Child Left Behind Act]]