The Every Student Succeeds Act is far from the first time that the balance of power in education policy has shifted. How have Kappan authors addressed past changes? 

 

As the authors in this issue of Kappan attest, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has been touted as a major change in how the federal government relates to state education agencies and school districts. But ESSA itself is just the latest reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which brought the federal government into the education sector in unprecedented ways. Across the decades, the balance of power between the federal government, states, and local districts has shifted numerous times, and Kappan authors have weighed in on each of those shifts. 

ESEA progress reports 

The February 1968 issue of Kappan provided an early response to the initial enactment and implementation of ESEA. James Guthrie (“A political case history: Passage of the ESEA”) summed up the political back-and-forth that led to the law. During the years prior to 1965, Guthrie observed, both Republicans and Democrats seemed to be coming to accept the idea of federal aid to education, but controversies remained regarding how such funds should be spent and who should make those decisions: 

Generally, Republicans tend to favor the block grant approach whereby states determine objectives for federal education funds. Conversely, Democrats, at least non-Southern Democrats, tend to favor the approach whereby federal funds are distributed in accord with specific congressionally determined categories. Despite these general partisan tendencies, considerable controversy develops across party lines. (p. 304) 

Another area where the balance of power came to the fore during this period was desegregation, and, as Guthrie explained, the movement to ensure students of all races had equal access to education had knock-on effects when it came to education funding: 

Because the Civil Rights Act interposes the federal government between citizens and their state legislatures and local school boards, it periodically has the effect of transforming the racial controversy into a “federal control” issue. In the minds of some anti-desegregation congressmen, the federal government, by requiring racial desegregation, has usurped local and state decision-making prerogatives. These congressmen vent their wrath and frustration by making floor harangues against “federal control,” referring to the U.S. Commissioner of Education as the “commissar of education,” and voting against school aid 
bills. (p. 303) 

Ten years after the passage of ESEA, Kappan authors were able to take a longer view. The November 1975 issue, titled “ESEA: Decennial views of the revolution,” offered both a positive and negative assessment of the legislation. On the pro side, Samuel Halperin (“The positive view”) explained that, despite having only a small effect on school spending, the ESEA “had enormous multiplier effects” (p. 147). For one thing, its passage laid to rest the question of whether the federal government should be involved in education. It also, according to Halperin, focused the conversation about education on the needs of children, promoted educational equality for a variety of student populations, and encouraged greater accountability for school performance. Taking the opposite view, William Wayson (“The negative side”) argued that “the ESEA is a case study of institutional intransmutability” (p. 151). However well-intended the law might be, the status quo, which left poor children at a disadvantage, reigned supreme, and bringing reform to the school and classroom level proved to be beyond the law’s ability to accomplish. He concluded: 

The ESEA was a complex phenomenon created in a complex era. It was a trial-and-error experiment in social change. It was a political expedient balancing demands for justice never delivered against cautions not to disturb institutions that support injustice. It was subjected to many unanticipated pressures and was implemented by people poorly prepared for the responsibility they bore. Such a complex experiment could never yield totally satisfactory results. (p. 156) 

 A federal department of education 

Prior to the passage of the 1979 Department of Education Organization Act, education matters were handled at the federal level within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). In the April 1977 Kappan, authors debated whether a separate cabinet-level Department of Education was needed. Making “The case for a federal department of education,” John Ryor argued that:  

Because American education has succeeded so well, we have developed a highly complex and technical society that demands more and more of an educated population. At the same time, we’ve created an idealistic and articulate citizenry dedicated to true social justice. It is these new demands that education struggles to meet without adequate money, status, legal support, or a sound organizational base. Such a base could be provided by a federal Department of Education. (p. 594) 

According to Ryor, these important new educational demands were being “smothered in the massive bureaucracy of Health, Education, and Welfare” (p. 594). A cabinet secretary committed to education could better focus on these issues. In addition, other education functions handled by more than 40 agencies and departments outside HEW could be brought under the single Department of Education, thus reducing inefficiency.  

In the same issue, Gerald Sroufe (“The case against a federal department of education”) argued that such a reorganization at the federal level would be complex and time-consuming: 

The principal question with regard to creation of a Department of Education is whether the game is worth the candle. The illustrations from the literature of executive reorganization . . . demonstrate that with sufficient energy a President can achieve a major reorganization but that a period of several years will be required. During these years his influence will be expended on reorganization rather than new initiatives. (p. 598) 

The decentralized nature of U.S. government, particularly regarding education, would make creation of a new federal agency politically challenging, more so than in other countries, Sroufe explained.  

Changing political winds 

By the 1980s, the deed had been done and the new department created, so the conversation turned to what tasks fell under the purview of the Department of Education, which began in the latter half of the Carter administration and really took off during the Reagan years.  

In the May 1982 Kappan, Thomas Shannon (“The emerging role of the federal government in public education”) reviewed how the responsibilities of the department had evolved. In January 1981, when Reagan became president, the federal government had four key responsibilities in the education realm: 1) financing programs of national significance, 2) financing for students whose needs were neglected at state and local levels, 3) advancing civil rights, and 4) acting as a clearinghouse for research.  

Perhaps counterintuitively, these functions expanded to five under Reagan’s education secretary, Terrel Bell: 1) providing leadership, with a focus on excellence, 2) collecting data and identifying trends, 3) offering targeted support to remediate deficiencies, 4) promoting equal opportunities and students’ rights, and 5) acting as a source of research. However, even if the number of responsibilities expanded, Shannon explained that the nature of the responsibilities would put power in the hands of localities: 

The Administration genuinely (and I think laudably) wants to end the flood of federal regulations and paperwork requirements that have become synonymous with federal aid to education. It intends to place primary decision-making power regarding the use of federal funds for education in the hands of state and local school authorities. Moreover, the Administration really wants excellence in education and a strong liaison between home and school. It recognizes that diversity is essential to excellence in education and to a high quality of life. It avers that excellence depends on competition — among both students and schools. And the Administration wants the moral side of education to be reaffirmed. Sensible schoolpeople, in my judgment, can find much in these broadly stated precepts with which to agree. (p. 596) 

In November 1984, a special section of Kappan titled “The vanishing myth of local control” considered what the shift of power back to the states looked like in practice. In “The changing balance in state and local power to control education,” Michael Kirst, section editor, stated that: 

The most striking feature of state/local relations in the last 20 years has been the growth in state control over education. Today, the organizations of professional educators and the local school organizations are making suggestions for only marginal change. And under the Reagan Administration, the federal role has been restricted to cheerleading and sponsoring small pilot programs. (p. 190)  

Putting power primarily in the hands of the states, Kirst went on to explain, would, in actuality, bring about a great deal of variation in degrees of local control, with some states choosing to assert more power over localities than others. And some states were choosing to involve themselves in matters “at the core of instructional policy, including what should be taught, how it should be taught, and who should teach it” (p. 190). 

Arthur Wise picked up on this trend in his January 1988 article (“The two conflicting trends in school reform: Legislated learning revisited”), noting that states were mandating basic outcomes, measured through tests, and, if those were not effective, they were turning to required curriculums and classroom inspectors. And so the reversion of control to the states seemed to lead to a lessening of local, classroom control: 

On the matter of who will control America’s classrooms and how well those classrooms will serve the interests of students, the jury is still out. It would be ironic — but perhaps should not be surprising — if the most lasting effects on education of the reforms of the Reagan era were to be a big push toward central management of education, a further diminution in the power of local officials, and a decrease in the responsiveness of the schools to their clientele. Americans must depend on educators to remind them of the fundamentally conservative idea that the best decisions are generally made closest to the people who are to be served. (p. 333) 

Federal mandates, state responsibilities 

The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), another reauthorization of ESEA, brought the move toward testing and accountability to the federal level. The law met with swift backlash, and Marc Tucker and Thomas Toch (“The secret to making NCLB work? More bureaucrats”) explain in the September 2004 Kappan that this should be no surprise, given how extensive the changes were. However, the reaction was not attributable merely to schools and educators wanting to preserve the status quo. Teachers and parents had legitimate concerns about over-testing, for one thing, but states were also being overloaded by the new requirements:  

The state agencies that NCLB relies on to carry out its sweeping mandates simply don’t have the capacity to do so. Like 220 volts of current being forced through a 110-volt kitchen appliance, the system is becoming overloaded, and the smoke is rising. (p. 29) 

In October 2007, Gail Sunderman and Gary Orfield (“Do states have the capacity to meet the NCLB mandates?”) echoed this sentiment: 

All states are now required to accomplish goals that none have ever met, and they have been given very little money to do so. If the law is to be extended, it is vital that Congress define a role for states that is feasible and give them reasonable resources and sufficient discretion to carry it out. We do not say this because we oppose the exercise of federal power. Federal action against discrimination, for example, has been essential. But we believe NCLB can work to produce more equal and effective schooling only if it makes sense to educators and provides the necessary resources. (p. 137) 

This capacity question remains with us in the passage of ESSA, as Joanne Weiss and Patrick McGuinn (“States as change agents under ESSA”) explained in the May 2016 Kappan and McGuinn explores further in the current issue.  

All of these questions — related to capacity, responsibility, politics, and power — show that any sort of education reform is complex, and well-intended plans may have unexpected consequences. It remains to be seen what the long-term consequences of ESSA will be, but there will no doubt be continued adjustments as policy makers seek to find the right balance of power that will bring all children the education they need. 

Citation: Preston, T. (2019, Sept. 23). A look back: The feds, the states, and Kappan. Phi Delta Kappan, 101 (2), 5-7.