need help

Education policy

Even though public education is considered a local and state responsibility, the federal government's role has significantly grown, especially from the mid-twentieth century till today. Due to the increased federal-state interactions in the education policy domain, complexity has continued to be recorded. After World War II, the federal role in education continued to grow, and this can mainly be attributed to federal aid to education. Education policy has been discussed in different administrations.

Bill Clinton administration

Bill Clinton has played a crucial role in the 1989 education summit and national education goals. During his presidential campaign, he has emphasized how he would be committed to federal action for education. He introduced his first proposal in 1993. The proposal was referred to as Goals 2000: The Educate America Act. The act was centered on parental responsibility and teacher quality. The Goal 2000 program also focused on supporting state development of standards and assessments (Papa & Armfield, 2018). The plan acknowledged the reform efforts that had been enforced by different states. This proposal was unique because it targeted all local schools rather than a specific subject area or group of students. Funding became available, and therefore different States took advantage of this, and the budget helped in supporting states in developing their tests and standards. For example, from 1994 to 1997, Texas received more than $100 million for this program. Different states were using different titles for the program. For instance, the state of Texas used the title Academics 2000. The program was flexible and encouraged states to be innovative, and this was one of the major reasons why the program gained a lot of support from states. However, the flexibility accorded to countries compromised quality because states' standards were not uniformly high.

Bill Clinton advanced his proposal for modification of Improving America’s Schools Act in parallel with the Goals 2000 (Benezra, 2016). The program was proposed at a time when there was a need to ensure the quality of education was improved through standards and tests. The program was successful because it received support from Democrats and Republicans. Business and education committed also presented their recommendations, which were considered. The economic, social, and political environment for the time the policy was implemented was stable. However, some financial constraints affected the implementation of the program but they were addressed eventually. Federal funding was low in 1994 but it increased from 1995. A new technology program was developed to support the creation and delivery of software to provide instructions on the applicability of standards and tests. The education policy was a success and necessary because it was proposed during a time when the creation of quality standards was paramount. The program was flexible and encouraged innovation which was a major reason why the majority supported it. The program created a good foundation for the delivery of high-quality education.

Obama administration

Obama linked the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and education to economic recovery and development. The Obama administration initiated education policy efforts. During the implementation of the policy, there was an issue of low performing schools. The school improvement Grant was there under President George W. Bush administration. However, the Obama administration enormously boosted the program. The schools that received grants were the poorest-performing schools. They had low graduation rates, poor maths, or poor reading. There was a need to improve these schools. There was a need for better standards and assessments in education to ensure that students graduate. There was also a need to improve the efficiency of higher education (Araya, 2015).

During this era, there was an economic crisis. It was faced with the worst economic times in U.S. history. However, Obama tried to ensure that the economy had stabilized. Obama Administration ensured that there was an economic recovery due to the economic crisis during that time. The politics during this time was corrupt and defeaning. Public opinion was agitated with divisive new ideologies such as socialism. However, such behavior was condemned. The reckless political practices did not consider social interdependencies. With the ongoing crisis, the administration developed measures to deal with the economic crisis. The social environment was stable. During this era, most of the citizens were included in social cohesion, social capital, and social participation in community programs.

The major focus was on Education spending within the economic stimulus bill. Over $40 billion was allocated for stabilization aid to eradicate the budget shortfalls and additional funds through IIDEA and Title 1 of ESEA. Even though the stabilization aid was allocated to fund short-term programs, some states replaced their educational appropriations with federal funds. This presented a challenge of whether the state education funding could decrease the stabilization aid. More state stimulus aid was tied to the federal education reform agenda. A $4.35 billion grant program was applied for education reform goals which are: recruitment and retention of effective principals and teachers, benchmarking standards and assessments, and improvement of low-performing schools, among others (King, 2017). The policy was effective during this time since there was a need to improve the low-performing schools. The lowest-performing schools were reformed and educational equity was promoted.

References

Araya, D. (2015). Education Policy and the Obama Administration. In Rethinking US Education Policy (pp. 77-105). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Benezra, M. R. (2016). How Policymakers Started the Federal Charter School Movement: A Case Study in Policy Entrepreneurship (Doctoral dissertation).

King, J. (2017). Giving every student a fair shot. The Education Digest, 82(7), 16-25. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/cabinet-exit-memo.pdf?utm_content=&utm_name=&utm_term=

Papa, R., & Armfield, S. W. (Eds.). (2018). The Wiley handbook of educational policy. John Wiley & Sons.