The Role of Federalism in Education - Essay Example

The Role of Federalism in Education: (School) The Role of Federalism in Education: The federal government openly entered America's education field for the first time in 1965 with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Prior to that time, the central government was pretty much custodial and the political environment in Washington was highly suspicious of any federal involvement in education (Hanna, 2005). The states controlled the education process under a system of competitive federalism, with each state determining how and what children would be taught. Education was not part of the federal scene. The 1960s, however, was a time of awakening in America, bringing with it a realization that the American Dream was not available to everyone, and the education system had serious problems. Civil rights leaders, such as Evers and King, publicized the unfair treatment of African Americans and other people of color, and the spotlight turned on education reform (Allen, 1996, p. 162). Since 1965 many further efforts have been made to update and improve the education system, but it's similar to plugging up leaks in a dam--eventually, the dam will fall apart through lack of structure and foundation. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed into law by George W. Bush, is the present administration's effort to rebuild the dam before it's too late, but will politics and business interests create invisible cracks during implementation Is this Act the ultimate answer and does it take into consideration the global issues that presently exist in the 21st century As America continues to evolve as a nation, the influence of the Internet on communication between countries makes it clear that education must include multicultural education, not specifically from the viewpoint of Americans with no knowledge of other cultures, but with input from those who can share their native language and their way of life with others. We live in a country of immigrants, but somewhere along the line we chose to establish a nation based on white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant tenets, ignoring the rich mix of cultures that make us who we are. According to Sonia Nieto, "Multicultural education cannot be understood in a vacuum but rather must be seen in its personal, social, historical, and political context" (1996, p. 1). Addressing Education Reform During the 1950s in the United States, the family unit seemed solid and pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock gave mothers credit for knowing instinctively how to raise their children. This was in contrast to behaviorist John Watson's method of rigid discipline, and Spock's book The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care (1946) was so popular it led to gradual erosion of the rules of behavior. In the meantime, a 1954 Supreme Court ruling that public schools must be integrated was virtually ignored until 1957 when nine black students were enrolled at a previously all-white school in Little Rock, Arkansas. This was the beginning of the public's introduction to cultural differences, and it was compounded by what was known as the "Red Threat," or communism. When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik first, it was decided that American children needed a better educational foundation, especially in math and science. This created what was called at the time an "informational flood" with children and their reading becoming the focus of big business. With this increased production, "children's books became less a branch of literature and more a gainful product" (Allen, p. 132). The increasing focus on children's education made its shortcomings more evident, and it was clearly necessary to address segregation and unequal educational opportunity due to poverty. The problems inherent in the education system as it existed in the 1960s called for drastic measures. Francis Keppel, dean of Harvard Graduate School of Education, was appointed U.S. Commissioner of Education and crafted the ESEA of 1965 in an effort to address the issues that extended across the country. The competitive federalism that always had determined education methods gave way to submissive federalism, with the central government taking on a major role in education. The two major points of contention in the act were mandated desegregation in the schools and overriding the separation of church and state with Title I benefiting both public and parochial schools (Hanna, 2005). Because President John Kennedy was Catholic, the concern was that federal funds would be directed to parochial schools, and Congressional leader Adam Clayton Powell introduced an amendment specifying that federal money could not be used to fund segregated districts. The amendment was not accepted by the Senate and a stalemate occurred. After Kennedy's assassination in 1963, President Lyndon B. Johnson made education and civil rights the foundation of his War on Poverty. This led to legislation that circumvented the stalemate and cleared the way for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was signed by Johnson in 1965. A federal mandate of desegregation defused one controversy, and funding for sectarian, non-public schools became part of the War on Poverty with the creation of Title I, which circumvented the other controversy (Hanna, 2005). The ESEA of 1965 gave the federal government the ability to make necessary changes in the overall system. History text books came under close scrutiny when it became evident that misinformation was rampant, often contradicting what children were seeing on their television screens, and black history was missing completely. In addition, all the characters in school readers were white. The education publishers addressed this by changing skin color of characters in the readers without changing facial features to reflect different cultures in a country noted for its diverse cultures. With the passage of ESEA, the children's book industry moved out of the text book field and into the library sector. Federal monies were poured into school libraries in an effort to offset television and update reference materials, creating an expanding market (Allen, pp. 162-203). With the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the ESEA 1965, the federal government was solidly in the education field, and the issues of poverty, race, and educational opportunity were being addressed together for the first time in America. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush tried to transform ESEA into a block grant program, but the effort was unsuccessful, while Bill Clinton introduced standard-based reform with bills like Goals 2000. Hanna notes the progress made in this area with the statement: "Now, all states have standards and it's completely accepted" (2005, par. 22). New Policy, New Hope for Education's Ills Through the years following the ESEA, education has been on a roller coaster, from concerns in the 1960s that children can't read to concerns in the 1980s that children can't write (Allen, 1996). In the 1970s President Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education, and in 1994 Congress wanted to eliminate it as well as the federal role in education (Hanna, 2005). When control in Congress unexpectedly shifted to the Democratic side, the effort ended. President George W. Bush's education reform legislation, No Child Left Behind, was approved on December 13, 2001. But is it a true reform guaranteed to be successful Or is it one more attempt to plug up the hole in the dike The Bilingual Act (Title VII), passed in 1968 was under constant attack until it finally was eliminated in 2002. Its purpose was to offer federal aid to local school districts to benefit children with limited English-speaking ability, stressing development of English skills as well as native-language skills. The act has been transformed into the English Language Acquisition Act, part of the larger school reform bill, No Child Left Behind (NCLB). In its new role, it stresses English skills only (Crawford, 2002). The new education law is intended to be a major overhaul of the present system, but an overview of the basic act indicates a system that might be new but raises more issues than it resolves. In education, teachers are faced with an even tighter curriculum, increased testing for themselves and for their students, and decreased funding in many areas. The original ESEA tried to address issues of poverty by telling states to "pay attention to poor children and work with their parents, but it didn't say, 'Teach such-and-such and we're going to test you on such-and-such.'^" (Hanna, 2005, p. 28). The No Child Left Behind act stresses the testing aspects of education, but it doesn't ensure that the tests reflect the test-taker's actual knowledge. Determining a comprehensive approach beyond testing that will get to the heart of what children actually know is far more reasonable. Conclusions There are four specific areas addressed in the NCLB (Facts and Terms, 2005) and each brings up questions that should be seriously considered. The goals of the NCLB are as follows: To ensure academic proficiency for disadvantaged children: By ignoring the cultural background of many students, in which a language other than English is an integral part, the ability of American children to understand and communicate with each other is considerably weakened. In addition, children who are learning English as a second language are now deprived of the ability to retain their native language. This in effect takes away their identity and must necessarily diminish their self esteem. There is no doubt that proficiency in the English language is a necessary part of American success, but why can't it include proficiency in a native language as well, especially in view of the need for international expertise in the marketplace. College students who major in a specific area, i.e. South American Studies, East Asian Studies, must study language as well as the culture, and they quickly discover it's not enough to know the language; they must know how to use it properly. Flexibility for school districts in how they use federal funds: How much flexibility does a school district have when schools are being graded on performance and when testing seems to be the major requirement Not only are teachers being faced with a time-consuming curriculum and progress reports on what they are learning, they are prevented from following a teaching method that would work best, based on the demographics of its student population. A major difficulty in education is the number of school dropouts and disciplinary problems. Testing will not resolve that. Children must want to learn and need programs that address their interests. Teachers need the freedom to encourage interaction with their students with imaginative innovations. The government is giving school districts more money, but under the NCLB, its use is based on following the testing procedures. The increase is small and the cuts are large with the biggest cuts in rural education and education technology (Dedman, 2002). Emphasis on effective educational programs through scientific research: The Department of Education is adamant that "there will be no more experimenting on children with educational fads" (Facts and Terms, 2005, par. 9). This indicates a standard teaching method that does not take into consideration the needs of individual groups of children. One of the standards is the teaching of English only in the schools, ignoring the benefits of knowing more than one language. What constitutes scientific research is not clear. Increased choices for parents of students attending Title I schools: Parents whose children are enrolled in a school that fails testing can move their children to another school. The cost of the move will be the responsibility of the failing district. However, test scores are sensitive to demographics and poverty and one or two kids can affect the score (Delisio, 2002). How can a parent be sure the school is at fault A comparison of ESEA in 1965 and NCLB in 2002 shows the same concepts--school improvement, corrective action, restructuring--but a different timeline, with school districts accountable on a yearly basis. The new act gives states more flexibility in how they use funds but state and local responsibilities are expanded. An Education World article mentions "lofty goals and not enough resources to accomplish them" (Delisio, No Child, 2002). One area that appears deficient is use of technology in the classroom. According to PLATO Learning, only a third of teachers report they feel prepared to use computers in the classroom, and "77 percent report spending 32 or fewer hours on technology-related professional development activities" (Delisio, Technology, 2003, par. 2). At a time when America should be working toward a global view, in education it appears to be more isolated than ever. According to the Center on Education Policy (From the Capital, 2006, 3/28): Seventy-one percent of districts surveyed recently reported reduced teaching time in at least one other subject, mainly social studies, in order to spend more time on reading and math, topics tested for NCLB purposes. Some officials feel the law has escalated pressure on teachers to a stressful level, reducing staff morale in some schools. Scores are rising, but it is not clear whether it is the yearly progress reports (AYP) or school district policies that have contributed to the improvement. The studies so far of the NCLB find its effects complex with both strengths and weaknesses but no clear judgment at this point. References Allen, Marjorie N. (1996). 100 Years of Children's Books in America: Decade by Decade. New York: Facts on File. Buchanan, James M. (1995/96, Fall-Winter). Federalism and Individual Sovereignty. The Cato Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2-3. Retrieved May 11, 2006, from http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-8.html Crawford, James. (2002). Obituary: The Bilingual Act, 1968-2002. Rethinking Schools Online, Vol. 16, No. 4, Summer 2002. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_04/Bil164.shtml Dedman, Tim. (2002). ESEA Reauthorization (PL 107-110) Teacher-Paraprofessional Quality/Assessment/AYP/Budget Provisions. National Education Association. Retrieved May 13, 2006, from http://www.ksba.org/specedesea.ppt Delisio, Ellen R. (updated 2002, 6/12). No Child Left Behind: What It Means to You. [Electronic Version]. Education World. Retrieved May 13, 2006, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/issues273.shtml ---. (2003, 4/30). Technology Integration, Assessment, and No Child Left Behind. Education World. Retrieved May 13, 2006, from http://www.education-world.com/a_tech/tech171.shtml Facts and Terms Every Parent Should Know About NCLB. (last modified 9/19/2005). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/parents/parentfacts.html From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. (Press Release, March 28, 2006).[Electronic Version]. Center on Education Policy. Retrieved May 13, 2006, from http://www.cep-dc.org/nclb/Year4/Press/CEPNewsRelease24March2006.pdf Hanna, Julia. (2005, June 1). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act 40 Years Later. [Electronic Version]. Ed. Magazine, summer 2005. Retrieved May 11, 2006, from http://gseweb.harvard.edu/news/2005/0819_esea.html Nieto, Sonia. (1996). Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education. (Second Edition). White Plains, N.Y.: Longman Publishers. Read More