Week 12-When it Comes to Education, the Federal Government is in Charge of ... Um, What?
The reading this week was a commentary on how the U.S Department of Education and its policy implementation affect schools at the local level with the bigger picture being that the relationship between the federal government and public education is foggy and educational policies can be transient--especially from administration to administration.
The author of the article, Brendan Pelsue, has two key points:
-The presidential administration and the Secretary of Education have a heavy hand in shaping what, how and when students learn.
-Although the Department of Education does not directly oversee the nation’s public schools, it does exercise its federal power through utilization of funding and policy directives to shape education .
Historically major changes in the government’s role in education have stemmed from the nation’s political state. Below is a brief timeline as mentioned in the reading:
-In the 1830’s the educational aims were to have schools that were public, free and nonsectarian.
-In 1954 Brown Vs. Board of Education case gave prelude for the government to have the power to intervene in cases where civil rights were threatened because it mandated the desegregation of public schools and gave the executive branch a legal precedent for enforcing equal access to education.
- By the late 1850’s sputnik was launched into space by the Soviets and it consequently put pressure on the U.S to step up our nation’s schooling.
-In the 1860’s Andrew Johnson’s administration was tasked with the tracking education statistics.
-In 1965 as part of Lyndon B Johnson’s War on Poverty, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) came to fruition and set the precedent of the government's involvement in education where states could receive federal funding provided they met the requirements outlined in certain sections, or titles, of the act.
-In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now IDEA) ensured that students with disabilities are provided a free appropriate public education to meet their needs.
-In 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) increased state accountability by setting rigorous student evaluation standards which required states to demonstrate student progress through assessments.
-In 2007 NCLB expires and congress had not established a consensus on its reauthorization. States that did not meet NCLB standards were issued waivers as long as they adopted policies favored by the Obama administration e.g. Common Core. Additionally, the Race to the Top program offered competitive grants that awarded points to states based on their implementation of policies like performance-based evaluations.
-In 2015 ESEA was reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), NCLB standardized testing requirements were kept, but the evaluation and accountability systems meant to respond to the results of those tests became the responsibility of individual states.
The above events are important because they demonstrate how congress writes laws and distribute funds with the contingency that individual states adopt its programs. They are also indicators of how the executive branch can regulate, clarify, and be selective about its enforcement of the law and how judicial rulings can redefine what qualifies as implementation of policy. (Pelsue, 2017)
This article was published about a year ago, but at the time there was already speculation about the ambiguity and skeletal features of Betsy Devos’ budget and policy implementation. Here is a link to the Trump administration’s Education budget for 2020 which includes a $7.1 billion dollar cut in funding.The article I linked mentions that Trump’s budget proposal is an “exposition of the administration’s philosophy on education: It is a state and local issue that the federal government shouldn’t have its hands in.” (Harris, 2019)
Do you agree or disagree with what Harris has implied? How do you feel about the current administration’s budget proposal--do you think it represents the needs of the American people?
Refereces:
Pelsue, B. (2017). When it Comes to Education, the Federal Government is in Charge of ... Um, What?.
Retrieved from:https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/17/08/when-it-comes-education-federal-government-charge-um-what
Harris, A. (2019). The Trump Administration Really Wants to Cut Education Funding. Congress Doesn’t.
Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/trump-administration-would-cut-education-budget-again/584599/
Thanks for the post.
ReplyDeleteI highly agree with Brendan Pelsue that the presidential administration and the Secretary of Education have a heavy hand in shaping what, how and when students learn. I personally think that Trump administration should have the United State’s best interests at heart. But the cut of education funding is no doubt a direct attack on the future of America. I think the current administration’s budget proposal doesn’t represent the needs of the American people because education is an important aspect of national development. We should give priority to the development of education. Without investing in education, how can we expect the next generations to clean up this mess that the current generation left for them?
Hi, Yesenia. Thanks for your clear summary. Personally, I believe that education is the foundation of the development of a country which determines it the direction and future. Although the country maybe could not obtain the interests immediately as soon as a large amount of funds was invested into the education industry, it will enjoy an enduring prosperous future in long-term because talents are irreplaceable resources for a country. Therefore, I think education shouldn’t be sacrificed.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post. In my opinion, I don't think that the administration's education budget is merely a state or local issue. Though the competitive grants can promote to improve the quality of education in states, it does has its limitations. I think the students progress or the education performance to some degree depends on the financial conditions and the education budget of a state. Thus the government has the responsibility to give the appropriate educational funds according to the needs of the state.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your sharing Yesenia. I think the state government shapes public education in America. And in order to provide free and quality education to all students, the state government has specific roles and duties that it performs. I think it is not only a state and local issue, but also the federal government’s responsibility to support the education. Education is really important for a country and would also influence the human development. America is a whole country, should not be separated by states but should be together. Maybe the federal government shouldn’t have its hands in too much but should support the education if they need.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your sharing. In the United States, the formulation and implementation of federal policies will have a vital impact on education, which is normal. Politics in many countries will affect culture and education. It is undeniable that education is closely related to politics. Whichever presidential term or educational policy they make, their goal is to maximize the development of students. Personally, the federal government may be able to devolve more powers, adapt to local conditions, or achieve better educational goals.
ReplyDeleteThank you for summarizing and sharing your post! I thought that this reading relates heavily to what is going on in our current education-political climate. The 2020 Department of Education Budget proposes cuts for different aspects of education such as affirmative action, student loans and work study, and special needs and education programs. I think this relates to the author's point of the federal government deciding who, when, and how student learn. As for whether state/local government should be the governing body to implement educational policy and funding - I am conflicted. One one hand, if state/local government played more of a role in education in their areas, there would be increased accountability on how money is distributed and spent. However on the account of the long history of the federal government history in education policy and reform, I think trying to designate control to the states seems like a way for the federal government to be selective over which aspects of education should be in their control
ReplyDelete2. Thanks for sharing. I’m agree with Brendan Pelsue. Especially the second point. Although the Department of Education does not directly oversee the nation’s public schools, it does exercise its federal power through utilization of funding and policy directives to shape education. Thanks for your summarization of the historically major changes in the government’s role in education have stemmed from the nation’s political state. That makes me feel clearer about the changes. As a foreigner student, I actually don’t know much about America’s educational system before I came here. But I know there are things that government needs to do efforts to improve after one year’s learning here. But I was surprised that government is going to cut the educational funding after there are so many problems that need to be solve.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I could focus on while reading Pulse's piece the term "bully pulpit." By hinging education funding (title I funds especially) on the implementation of certain federal funds, states are hamstrung with poorly thought out national policies. I think the most egregious of these was Race to the Top because states had to implement them so quickly. also the competitive element really rubbed me the wrong way. If we're going to maintain funding as a carrot for the federal funding can it not be title I? Can it be excess government education funding. Title I should be extended to schools regardless of what policies they do or do not implement.
ReplyDeleteAlso the cuts proposed by the Trump administration could impact research for treatments of new diseaases by NIH funding, also cutting loan forgiveness for public servants who intentionally worked jobs that pay beneath their skill level to serve the public is cruel (it was a benefit I looked forward to when I did work nonprofit, Also Trump and DeVos definition of freedom is choice and that choice sponsored by the market. It's a hand out when it's to a public good and a bailout when its for the market. The logic is beyond me.