INTRODUCTION In the opening of A Tale of Two Cities
In the opening of A Tale of Two Cities Charles Dickens writes,
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age
of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch
of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the
spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had
nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the
other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its
noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the
superlative degree of comparison only (Dickens, 2000, p.3). Even though Charles
Dickens wrote this statement more than 150 years ago, it continues to be quite
applicable in 2010. The central theme of A Tale of Two Cities is built around
contradictions, such as love and hatred, wisdom and foolishness, and hope and
despair. The same contradictions exist in the present day education system, which
is currently comprised of contradictions such as equity versus quality, unfunded
versus funded, rewards versus sanctions, and power versus authority.
This perpetuates the belief that it is both the best of times and the worst of times.
We live in a society that likes to experiment with contrary directions. It actively
encourages diverse forms of self-expression, filling the planet with variety beyond
imagination. Then it coheres this diversity into systems (Wheatley & KellnerRogers,
1996). The current philosophy of education follows this train of thought. The public
has and continues to expect contradictory outcomes from public education. We
continue to widen the scope of education yet individualize education for all students.
We want curriculum-based instruction using a child-centered approach. We are
demanding that we return to basics emphasizing standards and test scores while
teaching pro-social skills (Frank, 2004). We want a comprehensive curriculum that is
academically rigorous while requiring narrow testing in core subjects (Lazerson,
McLaughlin, McPherson, & Bailey, 1985).
More students are attending school than ever before, yet the dropout rate has
stagnated. Educators are better prepared, yet many educators are ill equipped to
teach children in today’s society. Information and research concerning education is in
abundant supply, yet educators do not use the data correctly. Advanced technology
is available to the masses, yet many students do not have access to the technology;
Finally, more agencies (state, federal, think tanks, associations, foundations, etc.)
are involved in education; yet local, state, and federal education agencies are
asserting their roles and power to determine who controls education in the United
States. Because of these contradictions, often times local, state, and sometimes
federal policies force schools to change course based on a political consideration
rather than strong research about effective practices (DarlingHammond, 2010).
These contradictions lend to the belief that reform of the educational system is
needed.
History tells us that students have fought for the right to be educated.
Politicians regularly run campaigns stating that they are going to ensure all students,
young or old, have a quality education. The media continues to focus the public on
societal problems allegedly caused by education (Weimer & Vining, 1992). Parents
argue about whether the school system is meeting the needs of their children. All of
which demonstrates the measure of the importance of schools to our culture and the
call for education reform (Lazerson, McLaughlin, McPherson, & Bailey, 1985).
The prevailing issues facing public education today tend to be viewed through
the lens that it is the worst of times for educators, policy makers, and the public. The
contradictions surrounding education cause confusion for all parties, especially the
general public. This confusion kindles reactionary feelings towards change and
reform within education.
There are also people who look at education through the lens of the best of
times. These people tend to think that the negatives can become positives. They
can see the endless possibilities for education. These people realize education is
the key to developing human capital, that education affects our economic and our
civic/cultural lives (Ravitch D. , 2010). Positive thinking produces proactive feelings
towards change and reform in education.
Charles Dickens begins A Tale of Two Cities by describing the atmosphere in
England by illustrating the contrasts between sacrifice and achievement by
examining both the past and the present. The same needs to be done concerning
education reform. Policy makers need to study the past, reflect on the present, look
through both the negative and positive lenses, and then make reasonable policies
that will determine the future of education.
Background of Education Reform
Reform of education is not new. The creation of education policies that
suggest and sometimes mandate how to educate our children is not new. Even
federal involvement in education is not new. What is new is the polarized political
environment in which reforms, policies, and mandates are being debated and
decided upon (Cibulka, 1995). The impact these suggestions are having on
education is phenomenal. Educators are being asked to work at a consistently high
level utilizing standards, technology, and evidenced-based assessments while
communicating educational needs, resolving complex problems, and developing self
and others.
In an important sense, education reform in the United States did not begin
with the passing of No Child Left Behind, or in 1983 with the release of A Nation at
Risk, or the years immediately preceding it (Cuban, 1990). In fact, debates about
reforming schools are as old as time. Criticism and reform of the education of young
people was old when Quintilian (35-95 A.D.) was young (Plato, 427-347 B.C.E). The
denigration of children, particularly adolescents, has been prominent in most nations
since the Industrial Revolution (Glass, 2008).
Problems Surrounding Education Reform
A lack of understanding by many educators concerning the politics behind
reform policies and initiatives has left many school leaders disconnected between
policy development and its implementation (Fowler, 2009). Many believe that policy
makers and politicians have crossed over the border between legitimate concerns
and political interference motivated by political ideology (Lawton, 1995) when
developing and implementing new policies. Implementation of a new policy may or
may not happen based on this disconnect.
To ensure implementation of a new initiative, policy makers must ensure that
educators understand why the policy has been chosen, who defined the policy, on
whose behalf, and who is paying for it. According to Stein (2004), the most
instrumental understanding of the policy process goes as follows: A governing
body motivated by interest groups, economic circumstances, and/or international
concerns wants to affect a specific situation, behavior, or condition of citizenry. In
order to do so, it must name a problem in need of reform and put into place rules
and regulations to ensure a desired solution. Policy makers aim to construct
effective incentives and disincentives to manipulate the behavior of policy subjects
and service providers. Policies are judged as successes or failures based on their
measured capacity to produce desired behaviors or outcomes (Stein S. J., 2004).
One must study the reform movement through the lenses of socio-political,
economic, cultural, and change issues for each initiative in order to get a sense of
where a policy came from and who created the policy (Table 2.1).
Purpose of Study
Explain the trends and progress of American education from 1933 to present as an
entitled social responsibility.
Context of Study
There are four main conceptual frameworks for studying this topic. According to
Nagel (1990) these frameworks are conceptual theory, theory of knowing, causal
theory, and normative theory. All four frameworks will be incorporated. However,
this study will primarily use knowledge utilization for understanding and improving
the utilization of scientific and professional knowledge in the setting of public policy
and professional practice (Dunn, Holzner, & Zaltman, 1985, p. 231). Conceptual
theory will be used to define what constitutes a good public policy evaluation.
Causal theory will be used to determine why some policies are adopted and others
rejected. Finally, normative theory to will be used to answer questions of ethics
(Nagel, 1990, p. 275).
Research Questions
1. Why were Roosevelt’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great Society, and Bush’s
NCLB chosen and not others?
• What factors influenced the development and adoption of these
policies?
• What were the intentions of each?
• What events followed the adoption of the policies chosen?
2. What is the definition of accountability for each of the policies chosen?
• How does the Accountability Era compare to the New Deal and
Great Society Eras economically?
3. What systematic changes have taken place due to enactment of
Roosevelt’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great society, and Bush’s NCLB?
• Intended consequences of the New Deal, Great Society, and No
Child Left Behind?
• What incremental changes were experienced because of the
intended and unintended consequences?
4. What is the cause for disconnect between the making of policy and
implementation of the policy by school leaders?
Research Design and Methodology
The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study research will be to describe
the evolution of the intentions of policies chosen and adopted during three critical
eras of education reform in the United States. According to Hatch (2002) a
qualitative study hopes to make sense of the actions, intentions and understandings
of those being studied. By explaining their existence and evaluating the policies I
hope to develop a deep understanding that educational reform does not happen
overnight but over a period of time and delineate the disconnect between the making
of policy and implementation of the policy by school leaders.
To develop an understanding of the intentions of the actors, the investigator
needs to be immersed in the context (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Through the
immersion, both tacit and propositional knowledge can be gathered, recognized as
legitimate, and analyzed. The observer cannot remain detached from the
participants and still hope to develop an understanding of the situation (Lowham,
1994). A case will be built for the researcher’s interpretations of the policy by
including enough detail and actual data to take the reader inside the progress of
social responsibility within public education since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Significance of the Study
There are surprisingly few studies of the changing role of the federal government
from a historical perspective. The few that notable studies are Hugh Davis Graham,
The Uncertain Triumph: Federal Education Policy In the Kennedy and Johnson
Years (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984); Carl F. Kaestle and
Marshall S. Smith, “ The Federal Role in Elementary and Education, 1940-1980,”
Harvard Education Review 52 (Nov. 1982): 384-408; Diane Ravitch, The Troubled
Crusade: American Education, 1945-1980 (New York: Basic Books, 1983); Harold
Silver and Pamela Silver, An Educational War on Poverty: American and British
Policy Making, 1960-1980 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) This
study is intended to provide the opportunity for implementers to develop a greater
understanding of societal problems. It is also intended to provide possible solutions
for elected and nonelected government decision makers. Finally, it is designed to
help decision makers to understand the projected costs and potential benefits of a
policy (Simon, Public policy: Preference and outcomes, 2010). I believe that by
looking at the past with the present reminds us that the current shape of education
was not inevitable. This analysis may even expand the sense of possibilities for
future economic and accountability policies of education. The historical record shows
that the choices are not simply about economics and accountability but rather that
the shape and spirit of public provision matter very much to its impact (Gordon,
1994). By lifting the constrictions of current economic developments, accountability,
and common core standards that are blocking our creative vision and choking off all
hope we can create a better educational environment for our children.
Limitations and Delimitations
1. Comparing the three eras of education reform, not the incremental education
policies created between the Roosevelt, Johnson, and Bush eras.
2. Will be a holistic process.
3. Will not be researching state education policies or district education policies.
Definition of Terms
Policy - A statement of a course of action or practice that is specified by a governing
board, designed to bring the resources of the organization into service, and
used to influence the actions of individuals and institutions.
Public Policy - A dynamic and value-laden process through which a political system
handles a public problem. What government ought or ought not to do, and
does or does not do.
Social Policy - Has to do with human beings living together as a group in a situation
requiring that they have dealings with each other.
Policy Analysis – Primarily concerned with the consideration of several policy
alternatives, each expected to produce different policy outcomes. Policy
analysis requires careful systematic and empirical study (Lasswell, 1971).
Policy analysis involves all aspects of the policy process, from the early
stages of policy adoption and formulation to the implementation and
evaluation of public policies. Client-oriented advise relevant to public
decisions and informed by social values. Analyzing and presenting
alternatives available to political actors for solving problems.
Policy Research - Is a cyclical process of steps that typically begins with identifying a
policy research problem or issue of study. It then involves reviewing the literature,
specifying a purpose for the study, enabling the researcher to draw conclusions from
the sample about the population as a whole.
Policy Actors - People and groups who are involved in the policy process.
Policy-makers-The set of individuals authorized and empowered to make decisions
for an element on the purposes of the element, the responsibilities of
individuals and institutions of the element, the money required to run the
element, and the rules required to make the element operate effectively and
fairly (Elmore & McLaughlin, 1988)
Policy implementers - Consist of those actors in the political arena who are
expressly granted the legal authority, responsibility and public resources to
carry out policy directives.
Clients - Specific groups being serviced by policies and how responsive these
policies are to clients’ perceived needs
Evaluators - People who study the systematic methods by which policy goals are
accomplished.
Intentions of a Policy - The ideas, values, attitudes, beliefs, attributions, and visions
that underlies or is ascribed to a policy from an individual’s perspective. New Deal -
Social and economic programs created in the wake of the Great Depression,
partially responsible for many of the social and economic programs that exist today.
Great Society (War on Poverty) - A number of programs initiated by President
Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, promoting economic assistance, housing,
and nutrition programs for low-income individuals.
NCLB (No Child Left Behind) - Public Law 107-110 is the reauthorization of ESEA
ESEA- Elementary and Secondary Education Act 1965
Social Responsibility- Responsibility for all people regardless of race, gender, or
economic status.
Implementation – The process through which an innovation is introduced and initially
used. Factors affecting success and failure.
CHAPTER 2
Perspectives and Contexts of Educational Reform as a
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Any policy issue involves many different facets (Loomis J. A., 2001, p. 7). Policy
implementation cannot be analyzed in isolation. In order to understand what occurs
when a policy is being implemented the related stages of the policy process
(Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). For this chapter the policy process will be viewed
in terms of three interrelated functional environments each of which contains various
groups of actors and arenas.
Three Aspects of Reform: Global, Local, and Historical
As policy makers contemplate adopting or declining education reform policies,
they must first look outward at the world, as well as inward. Similar to athletics and
business, educational policy makers need to scout and learn from their counterparts
around the world. Globalization is changing how we work, how we communicate,
and ultimately, how we live (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Education is an arduous
process especially within a global society. Different countries use different
approaches, but effective education always requires enormous effort (Ravitch D. ,
2010). According to Antikainen (2006), there are two facets to education as a social
institution, global or general versus local or particular.
Global or general facets of education refer to the world order. As
industrialization, urbanization, and technological changes are occurring globally and
are causing economic competition among nations, education has become the focus
of societal reform. With globalization, and now politically and economically
determined as part of world order, education has become organized into a very
uniform system in all parts of the world, in common with science and technology
(Meyer, Ramirez, Rubinson, & Boli, 1977; Antikaninen, In search of the Nordic Model
in education, 2006). Indeed researchers speak of a new type of consensus, a
tightening of the ranks, and even of an educational policy epidemic, a plague which
seems to be spreading in differing degrees throughout the industrial world (Risto,
2002). These policies seem to represent a new way of thinking in a world becoming
increasingly globalized and networked, which is related to broader economic, social,
and ideological changes (Risto, 2002).
The local or particular facet of education is discernible in cultural terms as well
as in political and economic terms (Antikaninen, In search of the Nordic Model in
education, 2006). The history of education in the United States is the history of a
locally organized, locally funded, and locally governed enterprise (Conley D. T.,
2003). Historically, local schools continued to maintain community values and
practices. These values and practices were similar throughout the United States
even if the customs, race, or community language were different.
In addition, to ensure reform, policy makers must refer to the past to legitimize
our beliefs and values. Issues cannot be treated as if they have never appeared
before. The past lives with us, not just in the sense that our contemporary
institutions are its products, but because our system of values is historically rooted
there. What we believe - our ideals, as well as the contradictions implicit in them -
are part of our heritage (Lazerson, McLaughlin, McPherson, & Bailey, 1985) and our
education system.
Finally, one must look at the causes for reform. Policy makers need reasons
to suggest reform whether they be economic, national security, or political reasons.
Policy issues are problems the government can address legitimately. Addressing
these issues is like a game. There are rules and players. It is complex and
disorderly. It is played in many arenas and involves the use of power. Finally, like a
game, it can have winners and losers (Firestone, 1989 & Lindblum, 1968)
Global education reform. International comparisons of curriculum and
student performance across national borders using PISA and TIMS scores have
become more specific, sophisticated, and credible. In recent years, the audience for
these reports has shifted from statisticians and academics to policy makers and the
general public (Conley D. T., 2003). Much has been made of the United States
average test scores compared to that of other, industrialized nations on these
assessments. It appears that the highest-achieving nations are making steep,
strategically smart investments in education while the United States is squandering
much of its human capital (Darling-Hammond, 2010). The United States is viewed as
standing still while more focused nations are moving rapidly ahead (Darling-
Hammond, 2010).
Three countries that have influenced education reform in the United States
and have each gone through educational reform processes in their countries are
China, Finland, and the United Kingdom (Table 1.1). These three countries
consistently earn top scores on the PISA and TIMMS International assessments, are
advocates of choice/market involvement, and have some form of accountability
system. Each country overhauled its education systems in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
Although none of these countries lacks problems and challenges, each has created
a much more consistently high-quality education system for all of its students than
has the United States.
While no system from afar can be transported wholesale into another context,
there is much to learn from the experiences of those who have addressed problems
we encounter (Darling-Hammond, 2010), thereby, allowing researchers the data
needed to analyze the basis for reform, the successes and the failures of the reform,
and the need for future reform (Table 1.2).
Education reform in China. The major education reform initiatives in China
over the past two decades can be grouped around four major interrelated themes:
quality education, increased market involvement, decentralization, and accountability
(Walker, Chen, & Qian, 2008). The release of The Decision on the Reform of the
Educational Structure (Chinese Communist Party (CCP), 1985) is generally
recognized as the beginning of education reform in post-Maoist China. Quality of
education is a major theme throughout this document and continues to be the
underlying theme in current Chinese education reforms. According to the Chinese,
quality education emphasizes cultivating students’ innovative spirit and practical
skills and aims to transform them into exemplary builders of socialism.
According to Yong Zhao, it should be no great surprise that China has done
well on the PISA. The Chinese education system is excellent in preparing
outstanding test takers, just like other education systems within the Confucian
cultural circle - Singapore, Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong. According to the OECO,
the international group that sponsors PISA, schools in China are dominated by
pressure to get higher scores on examinations. Teaching and learning, in secondary
schools in particular, are predominantly determined by the examination syllabi and
school activities at that level are very much oriented towards exam preparation.
Subjects such as music and art, and in some cases even physical education, are
removed from the timetable because they are not covered in the public
examinations.
Education reform in Finland. When analyzing the Finnish education system,
one must look at the Nordic model of education. This model is defined as an attempt
to construct a national education system on the foundation of specific local values
and practices, but at the same time is subject to international influences
(Antikaninen, In search of the Nordic Model in education, 2006).
In 1998, the Finnish adopted the Basic Education Act that increased the
autonomy of the end-users of educational services at the municipal level at the
expense of national control (Risto, 2002). Previously it was believed that the goals of
education could be achieved by strict norm-steering; now it is believed that they can
be achieved by setting national core goals and evaluating the achievements
afterwards. Three core elements of the new education policy are choice, evaluation,
and decentralization.
The Basic Education Act confirmed that parents had free choice of schools at
the comprehensive school level throughout the country of Finland, but the
municipalities were left with the right to restrict parents’ choice of schools if choice
came at the expense of children zoned for that school. Private schools are not part
of this equation.
Evaluation in Finland is seen as an essential tool of quality development.
According to the Secretary General of Ministry of Education, evaluation is seen as a
pivotal element in the new steering system since it replaces the tasks of the old
normative steering, control and inspection system (Hirvi, 1996). Self-evaluation of
the teacher and student is important in developing self knowledge. Obligatory
national testing has, however, never been applied in the Finnish Comprehensive
(Risto, 2002).
Decentralization of education policy was part of more extensive changes in
Finnish state policy. Measures to increase local decision-making power meant an
almost complete break from the earlier government guidance and inspection system.
Now the local level is an autonomous actor in the educational field (Risto, 2002).
Education reform in England. The Reform Act of 1988 is considered by
many as the most important education legislation to take place in the United
Kingdom since 1944. This educational reform has, to a great extent, been consistent
with the widespread changes in Westernized societies (Aldrich, 1995). The intention
of the Act was to change the nature of the English education system by moving away
from planning and cooperation between central and local government towards a
market which parents were promised the right to choose schools (Lawton, 1995).
The reforms were justified to the public in terms of individual and national economic
performance, national efficiency, and controlled competitiveness.
The Reform Act created a national curriculum of ten subjects that is centrally
prescribed and controlled by the national government. The powers of local
education authorities have been severely reduced or done away with. Testing for
accountability purposes is conducted at the ages of 7, 11, 14, and 16. Independent
(private) schools do not have to follow the national curriculum nor are their students
subjected to national testing.
The Journey of Education reform in the United States. After reviewing the
educational systems of Finland, China, and England and comparing their test scores
with those of the United States, it becomes clear that there is a disparity of
achievement within the United States that must be taken care of first. This disparity
has occurred for numerous years and on many levels (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Where do we begin? American politics tends to function in cycles. Reform
movements within the government occur about every 40 years. The politics of
education are no different; therefore, we must study the history of education reform
on both the federal and state level in the United States.
Reform from 1780-1940. Since the passage of the Constitution in 1787 and
the Bill of Rights in 1791, elementary and secondary education has been defined
broadly by state constitutions, specified by state statutes, and implemented locally
by state agencies, school boards, and local school districts. The Constitution does
not include the words education or school; however, the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution states that powers not delegated to the federal government are
reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people (Shapiro, 1973). Through this
interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, responsibility for schooling was delegated to
each state. Following the Civil War, the federal role in education expanded
considerably with the creation of the Department of Education in 1867 (Vinovskis, M.
1999). The Department was created for two purposes to collect and disseminate
data and to help states establish effective school systems and assist the states in
economic dishevel. Even with the creation of the Department of Education, federal
involvement in education was modest in resources and limited in scope.
During this time in history there were scant opportunities for education
(Antikaninen, 2006). Work, breadwinning, and war linked the stages of life together
for most citizens. Education was considered an ideal or luxury for most people living
in the United States. Crusaders for public education conducted research and passed
laws that were pivotal for the times. In 1892, the National Education Association
(NEA) Committee of Ten reexamined the entire high school curriculum and
recommends a college-oriented high school curriculum (Sizer, 1964; Lazerson, M.,
McLaughlin, J. B., McPherson, B., & Bailey, S. K., 1985). Today, it is called college
and career readiness.
Racial issues became a topic in 1896, when The Supreme Court ruled in the
case of Plessey versus Ferguson that separate but equal policies, were legal
(Alexander & Alexander, 2009). This law became a legal precedent used to justify
many other segregation laws, including separate but equal education institutions.
The philosophy of separate but equal schools stayed in place until 1954.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was founded in
1905 (Lagemann, 1983). The Carnegie Foundation continues to be an independent
policy and research center, whose primary activities of research and writing have
resulted in published reports on every level of education. Henry Pritchett, the first
president of the foundation, secured the Congressional charter in 1906, and
broadened the Foundation's mission to include work in education policy and
standards. The Carnegie Foundation’s achievements have included the Carnegie
Unit, Flexner Report, the Graduate Record Examination, Educational Testing
Service, and Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America (Lagemann, 1983).
By the early 1900’s, many schools were experiencing problems with student
attendance, dropouts, and retention. A research project entitled Laggards in Our
Schools collected data regarding students who were lagging behind academically in
school. The purpose of the research was to put together useful material bearing on
the subject, develop a mode of attack on the problem, and to analyze a sufficiently
large number of students lagging behind in school to demonstrate the utility of the
method and give answers of at least a provisional nature to some of the questions
being asked (Ayres, 1913). The information gleaned from this research was
released to educators in 1913, and motivated all states into passing compulsory
attendance laws for students by 1918.
Education reform from 1940-2011. Beginning in the 1940’s, educational
opportunities increased as work and education became more linked. Education
became a means for career progression. President Roosevelt’s New Deal (Reiman,
1992) and VJ Day brought about changes in federal education legislation that for the
first time reflected social responsibilities and foreign policy concerns. Legislation
included the G. I. Bill and National School Lunch Act (Reiman, 1992). Following this
time, educational reform efforts began to occur in waves. Each wave represents a
different facet of education reform and era of time as created by the researcher
(Table 1.3).
During the second wave of reform (1950-1960), the federal education policy
also focused on righting perceived wrongs and guaranteeing equal opportunity for
the disabled and the disadvantaged in education. Federal laws were created to
ensure that every citizen’s civil rights were being honored and that they had equal
opportunities to a free and appropriate education. Overt process and compliance
issues lent themselves to overt process and compliance remedies (National
Conference of State Legislatures, 2010).
Federal education policies also began to advance science and math
curriculum during this era of reform with the formation of the National Science
Foundation, and the passing of the National Defense Education Act (Anderson L. W.,
2007).
Education became a commodity or began to be taken for granted during the
third wave of educational reform (1960-1980).
The last wave of reform (1980-present) is built on noble intentions and rigid
accountability, which are difficult to follow through with due, in some part, to the fact
that federal policymakers in Washington can mandate from afar the necessary
elements of successful school reform (National Conference of State Legislatures,
2010).
Civil rights: Second wave of educational reform from 1950-1960. Prevalent
issues affecting education during this wave of reform began in 1954, when the
Supreme Court ruled in Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka that separate
educational facilities were inherently unequal (Alexander & Alexander, 2009). This
lead to the use of federal troops in Little Rock, Arkansas for the purpose of allowing
nine African-American students, the Little Rock 9, to enroll and attend a public white
school in 1957 (Watrus, 1997; Kasher, 1996).
Standards became a prevalent topic when Rudolf Flesch wrote a book entitled
Why Johnny Can’t Read: And What You Can Do About It. This book was the first of
its kind in that it was written for the general public, not for educators, to warn the
public about the reading skills or lack of reading skills among American students
(Flesch, 1955). It became a top seller in the 1950’s.
National security took center stage in 1957, when the Soviet Union launched
Sputnik, the first satellite to orbit Earth (Killian, 1977). Partially because of Sputnik,
science and science education became important concerns resulting in the passage
of the National Defense Education Act, which authorized increased funding for
scientific research and science education (Anderson L. W., 2007).
Social issues: Third wave of educational reform from 1960-1980. In the
1960’s, the role of the federal government expanded to target under-served
populations with the expectation of raising student achievement for disabled and
economically disadvantaged students (National Conference of State Legislatures,
2010). Equity became the primary issue and spending money was the solution.
Between 1961 and 1979, federal spending on education increased fifteen fold (640
to 9,979 million) (Langbert M. , 2008).
The third wave of educational reform was part of President Johnson’s “Great
Society.” President Johnson declared war on poverty. Beginning in 1963, with the
inauguration of the Great Society, the recognition of the existence of cooperative
federalism was accompanied by an expansion of the federal government’s role, not
only as an initiator of programs, but as a policy innovator willing to apply various
forms of pressure on the states and localities to get them to conform to its demands
(Elazar, 1984). In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was
passed which authorized the first general program of federal school aid in the
nation’s history (Jordan & Tostow, 1986). ESEA was authorized at a time when civil
rights continued to be a major topic of discussion and American involvement in the
Vietnam War was increasingly causing funds to be stretched thin. During this time,
James Coleman was commissioned by the Department of Education to research and
write about educational equality in the United States. In 1966, the report entitled
Equality of Educational Opportunity, commonly referred to as the Coleman Report,
was released (Ravitch, 1993; Bierlein, 1993).
During the 1960’s, much of the pressure toward conformity was similar to that
utilized previously by the government when extensive governmental innovation was
used. The pressure was usually exerted by bureaucratic designs (laws and
mandates) or by increasing national focus on the issue. The idea of having to share
funds, compete for funds, or account for funds was not typically used by the federal
government before 1970.
Structural changes were made to the system concerning sharing funds after
Richard M. Nixon became president in 1968. School finance reform of the 1970’s
involved structural changes that introduced grant programs, project grants,
diversification of eligible recipients, grants for inner city improvements, and planning
requirements that still exist. The most notable laws to impact education during this
era are the Indian Education Act and Title IX of the Education Amendment (1972),
the Rehabilitation Act (section 504) of 1973, and the Education of all Handicapped
Children (PL 94-142) of 1975 (Alexander & Alexander, 2009).
Accountability: Fourth wave of educational reform from 1980-2000. The third
wave of reform began in the 1980’s with simple assumptions that the requirements
for transforming the ailments of American public schools could be obtained by
adding more demands, mandates, and accountability measures to the system.
Allegedly standards had fallen to a dangerously low level of mediocrity. Hence,
these standards could be raised by increasing graduation requirements, expanding
the number of years of required subjects, lengthening the school day, and mandating
a specific number of minutes of instruction (Cibulka, 1995). In 1983,
President Reagan authorized a study of American education system (The National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The findings called for sweeping
reforms in public education and teacher training.
In 1989, an education summit was held in Charlottesville, Virginia where
President George H. W. Bush convened all the nation’s governors to discuss and
create an educational policy (Conley D. T., 2003). This was a momentous event in
the history of education reform in the United States and led to the1994 America’s
Schools Act; Goals 2000.
The Fourth wave of reform that began in the 1980’s came to fruition in
January, 2002, with the signing of Public Law 107-110, otherwise known as the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). The focus of
No Child Left Behind continued to be on Title I and equity for poor and
disadvantaged children (Table1.3).
State Reform. Local involvement often refers to the local school districts, but
for the purpose of this discussion, the definition is broader and refers to state
involvement. For most of the past 200 years, local education has wielded the lion’s
share of power to determine education policies and practices (Conley D. T., 2003).
This is discernible culturally, but often also in political and economic terms
(Antikaninen, 2006).
The states are important in the governance of education because they retain
their political position in the overall framework of the nation’s political system, a
position that requires constitutional support but that transcends constitutional
formulations (Elazar, 1984). While they are part of national civil society, the states
are also separate civil societies that retain their individual cultures while cooperating
with the federal government.
If people can’t obtain governmentally-related goals through the federal
government, they go through the states and vice-versa. Issues often become
important at the state and federal level at the same time. Many do not believe that
the states can afford to act on their own with respect to many programs, education
being one of the programs (Elazar, 1984). The federal government’s influence is a
regulatory function with money attached to the outcome (Elmore, 2009). This occurs
partly due to the fact that it is expensive to educate children and states need federal
dollars to assist in paying for programs.
History of state reforms. Education reform movements have roughly followed
the same path as many other public policy innovations in the United States.
Innovation and experimentation tend to begin in a few state legislatures (National
Conference of State Legislatures, 2010) and eventually other states adopt the policy.
Many of the current education laws, such as paying for education, attendance laws,
and transportation laws, were enacted at the state level first.
Massachusetts as a leader of education. State education laws and policies
began during the colonial years. The state of Massachusetts has been and continues
to be a leader in education initiatives and reforms. In 1642,
Massachusetts Bay School Law was passed, followed by the Massachusetts Law of
1647. The Law of 1647 required that every town of at least 50 families hired a
school master who would teach the children to read and write. All towns of at least
100 families should have a Latin grammar school master who would prepare
students to attend Harvard College (Tanner & Tanner, 1990).
Massachusetts continued to lead state reform, and in 1827, the state passed
a law requiring towns of more than 500 families to have a public high school open to
all students (Tanner & Tanner, 1990).
In 1837, Massachusetts formed the Massachusetts State Board of Education
to determine curriculum, set standards for teaching, and create a certification
process for teachers. To assist the State Board of Education, the state funded a
school specifically for teacher education in Lexington, Massachusetts.
Massachusetts also enacted the first mandatory attendance law in the United States
(Tanner & Tanner, 1990).
The Progressive Era. The progressive era of political and social reform, which
occurred around the turn of the twentieth century, served to restructure and renew
local control. During this time, non-partisan governance structures were
emphasized (Conley D. T., 2003). Many of today’s education structures that are
viewed as common practice were established based on the non-partisan structure.
Such structures involved the following:
• Transportation: 1919 - all states have laws providing funds for
transporting children to school (Sass, 2010).
• Curriculum: 1925 - Tennessee versus John Scopes (the Monkey Trial)
prohibiting the teaching of evolution (Tanner & Tanner, 1990).
• Race: 1931 - Alvarez versus the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove
School District first successful desegregation court case in the United
States (Sass, 2010).
• Finance reform: 1970’s - finance reform involved structural changes
that introduced grant programs.
• Quality versus Quantity: 1980’s - focus on quality by adding more
demands, mandates, and accountability measures to the system.
• Systematic Change: 1990’s - states setting standards and
benchmarks.
Systematic change. In1991, Minnesota passed the first charter school law
(Sass, 2010). Two years later the Massachusetts Education Reform Act was passed
requiring a common curriculum and statewide tests (Sass, 2010). By 1999, 48
states had statewide academic standards; 39 mandated tests aligned with their
standards; 19 required high school exit exams, and eight others were planning to do
so (Education Week, 2002). Since 2002, forty-nine states and the District of
Columbia have made changes in their education policies that have had an impact on
state laws, district regulations, and school operating procedures (National
Conference of State Legislatures 2010). In 2009, The Common Core State
Standards Initiative, a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices and the Counsel of Chief State School
Officers, was launched (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010 & Rheault,
2010).
No two states are alike, causing a growing consensus among politicians,
school leaders, and the general public that clear and shared goals for student
learning must provide a foundation on which to improve education and achievement.
Under NCLB, states had to set interim targets for the percentage of students scoring
proficient. Many states backloaded or kept achievement cut scores extremely low
and easy to make in the early years of accountability. Thereby, creating growth
scores that call on schools and districts to make impossible steep achievement gains
in the final years before 2014. Given this situation, the percentage of public schools
not making AYP is likely to keep increasing across the country. The current system
does not give an accurate gauge of school performance, and its pass or fail
approach to making AYP does not provide a comprehensive picture of student
growth (Dietz, 2010).
Recently under the auspices of NCLB, failing schools in Rhode Island and
Georgia have fired their entire staff in an effort to avoid further sanctions from the
state and to make the school eligible for up to $6 million in federal money. Experts
estimate the mass-firing tactic is used to turn around 20 to 30 schools in the United
States annually (Burkhart, 2010). Many teachers organizations are concerned that
starting from scratch will hurt the school and community more than it will help,
particularly because many educators don’t want to take jobs at failing schools.
State of Nevada reforms. Similar actions have taken place in Nevada to
ensure that funds are received for education. Having to restructure low performing
schools, the State Department of Education has required local school districts to
inform schools that staff members have to reapply for their jobs at that school. The
staff members are allowed to transfer to other jobs. This type of policy has made it
difficult to find veteran, highly-qualified staff members to apply for jobs at schools
that have not made AYP.
The way in which states have gone about addressing the law’s requirements
varies. While many appear to be dealing with the requirements piecemeal, a few
states have chosen a different path. Nevada used an omnibus bill to revise a
number of statutes affected by NCLB requirements (Education Commision of the
States, 2004).
Due to No Child Left Behind, ARRA funds, and Race to the Top funds, many
of the 50 states and Washington DC have changed many of their policies concerning
education. These changes began in Nevada in 2002, when state officials began to
interpret the No Child Left Behind Law and create the Nevada Accountability Plan
(U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Each state has been mandated to create an
accountability plan based on the following: 1. State Standards, Assessments, and
Targets; 2. School and District Adequate Yearly Progress Report; 3. Identification of
schools and districts needing improvement; 4. State data and reporting systems ; 5.
State systems of support for identified schools and districts; 6. Promoting school
improvement; 7. Interventions and sanctions for identified schools; 8. Focus on
school improvement; and 9. Promoting district improvement (U.S. Department of
Education, 2008). This plan was submitted to the United States Department of
Education for approval. As a result of an external peer review, Nevada had to make
changes to the state accountability plan. The most recent change in policy occurred
during the special session of the Nevada State Legislation held in February 2010.
During that session, SB 2 passed stating that teacher evaluations would be based
on several factors, one being student achievement. This law has and will cause
changes in student testing, reporting of data, and regulation of money, thereby
complying with one component of Race to the Top Funding.
Reasons for Education Reform
The reasons people believe education reform is needed are numerous;
however, most of the reasons can be consolidated into three main topics. The first
involves funding of schools. According to Glass (2009), modern education debates
have been shaped by powerful economic and demographic forces that have been
over a century in the making. Throughout the last century, critics loudly proclaimed
the nation’s peril due to the alleged poor condition of the schools. Since 1812, when
Kalamazoo, Michigan invoked a property tax to help fund education, states have
relied substantially on local property taxes to fund K-12 education (City of
Kalamazoo Assessor's Office, 2008). Unfunded and underfunded education
mandates imposed by federal policymakers have significantly added hundreds of
billions of dollars to the state and local taxpayers’ burden (National Conference of
State Legislatures, 2010).
Second, many believe that education lacks a purpose or vision. From the
colonial days to World War II, schools had a special role of preparing the next
generation for responsibilities of citizenship (Lazerson, et al).
The third reason involves the perception that teachers and other professional
educators have nearly complete control over policy and practice. The perception of
autonomy has left the educational system both unaccountable to consumers
(parents and communities) and susceptible to precisely the sort of curriculum
initiatives being presently addressed (Apple, 1993), thereby setting the stage for
greatly increased federal leadership and initiatives in education policy, a mandate the
federal government has fulfilled over the past 35 years (Conley D. T., 2003).
Public education is both the source of America’s most noble hopes and the
repository of its greatest frustrations (Lazerson, et al). From the beginning, schools
had a special role of preparing the next generation for responsibilities of citizenship.
It was believed that a self-governing people needed universal education skills
(Lazerson, et al). In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, when immigration to the
United States was great, education served the purpose of Americanizing students
and teaching English. In the 1950’s, education was a means for improving the lives
and job opportunities for every American. Eventually, in the 1960’s -1980’s,
education is thought of as a commodity when the general public began to take it for
granted.
Our expectations for education have led us to extend schooling to
more and more people for longer periods of time. The commitments to
popularization and the expansion of opportunity have crossed social
class, racial, and gender lines. Laborers, artisans, farmers,
manufacturers, and professionals, whites and nonwhites, immigrants
and native-born, women and men have all, at various times, sought to
expand schooling for themselves, for their children, and for the children
of others (Lazerson, et al).
Changes in Education
From the colonial times to the present, the role of education has changed in
the United States. This change is due in large part to educational reform and the
emergence of education as a central political topic (Sandham, 1999). Education is
an appealing issue for policymakers and national leaders because of the interest it
generates among a wide range of voters (Conley D. T., 2003). One change has been
the increasing involvement of the federal government in creating and regulating
educational policy. No longer can public schools only worry about managerial issues.
Public school administrators are being transformed from bureaucratic leaders to
what Bryson and Crosby (1992) and Fowler (2009) call public leaders. Education
leaders are increasingly being asked to function outside the realm of the traditional
role of principal. They must develop a professional mindset as well as master the
technical skills of administrations.
Another change has been the perception of the public towards education. To
change attitudes towards an education system requires a powerful propaganda
campaign (Husen & Kogan, 1984). In an environment of confusion and time of crisis,
the public and policy makers may look to unlikely places for solutions (Glass, 2008).
The new policy elite attended school, know how to read, and are internet users.
They also have strong opinions concerning what is best for public education. Unlike
any other profession, despite having little or no background in education, these elite
people expect to be heard. The top four foundations are Michael and Susan Dell
Foundation, Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, and Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation. Most recently the elite policymakers seem to be
listening to Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, and his wife Melinda Gates concerning
their views of public education. Bill Gates has written articles for leading magazines
and publications, has advised the Council of Chief State School Officers, and has
been interviewed on national television stating his opinions of public education.
Often the facts stated are difficult to verify and the advice is naïve (Glass, 2008). His
qualifications? He is a multi-billionaire and donates billions of dollars to the causes
important to him.
Problems Surrounding Education Reform
A lack of understanding by many educators concerning the politics behind
reform policies and initiatives has left many school leaders disconnected between
policy development and its implementation (Fowler, 2009). Many believe that policy
makers and politicians have crossed over the border between legitimate concerns
and political interference motivated by political ideology (Lawton, 1995) when
developing and implementing new policies. Implementation of a new policy may or
may not happen based on this disconnect.
To ensure implementation of a new initiative, policy makers must ensure that
educators understand why the policy has been chosen, who defined the policy, on
whose behalf, and who is paying for it. According to Stein (2004), the most
instrumental understanding of the policy process goes as follows: A governing body
motivated by interest groups, economic circumstances, and/or international concerns
wants to affect a specific situation, behavior, or condition of citizenry. In order to do
so, it must name a problem in need of reform and put into place rules and
regulations to ensure a desired solution. Policy makers aim to construct effective
incentives and disincentives to manipulate the behavior of policy subjects and
service providers. Policies are judged as successes or failures based on their
measured capacity to produce desired behaviors or outcomes (Stein, 2004).
One must study the reform movement through the lenses of socio-political,
economic, cultural, and change issues for each initiative in order to get a sense of
where a policy came from and who created the policy (Table 2.1).
Socio-political. All social policies provide limited frames for viewing the
individuals they are designed to serve. A primary focus on individual attributes and
behaviors, rather than on structural or institutional conditions, assumes that the
beneficiaries of enacted policies have problems that government interventions can
solve (Ravitch, 2010; Stein, 2004). The public school system has always served to
achieve the social goals of the government as well as provide an education for the
children of the United States. Federal interest and involvement in education stems
from at least four goals: promotion of democracy, assurance of equality of
educational opportunity, enhancement of national productivity, and strengthening of
national defense (Center of Education, 2000).
As instruments of the state, social policies are predicated on the assumption
that the government can remedy the perceived problems of the country’s deviant
populations. The existence of social policies assumes that the government can
improve and/or correct the social problems through funding allocations, bureaucratic
design, and/or national focus. Government policymakers craft policies in keeping
with the state’s corrective role, refashioning approaches that provide what they
believe the most effective and efficient processes toward intended policy goals
(Stein, 2004).
Economic funding. Whether a community or school lacks in or exceeds in
funding for education, money has an effect on education. Well-functioning societies
have always invested in resources for the common good - public education is
considered a common good (Berliner & Biddle, 1995).
According to Glass (2009), modern education debates have been shaped by
powerful economic and demographic forces that have been over a century in the
making. As United States economic productivity continued to lag in the 1980’s, and
the nation struggled to compete with resurgent Japanese and European economics,
attention turned to attitudes, skills, and preparation of American issues (Conley D. T.,
2003). Critics loudly proclaimed the nation’s peril was due to the alleged poor
condition of the schools.
Much of K-12 education funding depends substantially on property taxes,
which have traditionally been considered local funding. Unfunded and underfunded
education mandates imposed by federal policymakers have significantly added
hundreds of billions of dollars to the states’ and local taxpayers’ burden (National
Conference of State Legislatures, 2010).
The United States spends the same average amount of our gross domestic
product on elementary schools as other developed countries, but it falls in the
bottom half in commitment to high schools. The federal government provides about
$40 billion of the $550 billion currently expended on K-12 education, making up 8%
or less of the nationwide K-12 budget. Every additional $1 billion in federal
appropriations increases aggregate K-12 expenditure by two-tenths of a percent
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010).
The federal government will continue to have signigicant influence through its
use of leveraged funds. These funds may constitute only a small portion of a school
district’s education budget, but they may require significant change in education
policies or practices as a condition of receiving the funds (Conley D. T., 2003).
Cultural focus. Cultural investigation allows for interrogation of the ways in
which policymakers and practitioners define the needs of the subjects for whom the
policy is intended. Policymaking and analysis of the policy involves the portrayal of
deficiencies in certain segments of society by the policy-making elites - scholars,
politicians, and policymakers - in order to motivate and justify the policy/reform being
proposed (Stein, 2004). Only those in positions of power (elites) participate in
policymaking. Elites operate in the political climate in which they exist and their
products are the expectations of the specific state’s political culture (Fuhrman,
1988). While this may sound trivial or obvious, the political culture in which they
operate greatly influences what politicians and policymakers do (Lowham, 1994).
Elazer (1984) identified three major types of political cultures in the United
States. All elite policy makers are influenced by one or more of these cultures. They
include moral political culture, individual political culture, and traditional political
culture (see Table 2.2).
Change. After death and taxes, the only constant is change! (Cibulka, 1995).
It is incredibly difficult to make something happen, most especially across the myriad
of government and institutions involved in education. Social issues, such as
education reform, tend to be thorny. The main reason for the difficulty in making
change is because policymakers cannot mandate what matters most to a person,
community, or system. Policy success depends critically on two broad factors: local
capacity and will of the people.
Local capacity can be addressed in the policy. Training can be offered.
Dollars can be provided. Consultants can be hired. All of which can support
intended consequences.
Good policy analysis takes a comprehensive view of the consequences and
social values of the policy. The will, attitudes, motivation, values, and beliefs of the
people underlie the implementer’s response to a policy’s goals or strategies. As
individuals, we turn to our moral intuition to help ourselves develop systems of
values to guide our assessment of change. Our political institutions must
unavoidably play a role in selecting specific values that will have a weight in
collective decision making (Weimer & Vining, 1992).
Intertwined closely with the focus on socio-political, economic, cultural, and
change reform issues is the fact that education has become an entitlement in the
United States for policymakers, media, and stakeholders.
Education as a Central Political Topic
In the past five decades, education has become a central political topic
among the people of the United States and thus the federal government, causing
new patterns of policy implementation to emerge (Odden A. R., 1991). Why has
education become such an important topic? Global or general facets of education
refer to the world order. As industrialization, urbanization, and technological
changes are occurring globally causing economic competition among nations,
education becomes the focus of societal reform (Lazerson, et al). The public’s
opinion towards the deficiencies of public education increased with the release of A
Nation at Risk; the Imperative of Education Reform in 1983. The main thesis of A
Nation at Risk concerned the “failures” of American education, how those “failures”
were confirmed by “evidence,” and how this would inevitably damage the entire
nation (Berliner & Biddle, 1995). This caused a tidal wave of educational reform that
eventually resulted in No Child Left Behind.
Publics’ Critical View of Education
There continues to be a magnitude of reasons for education becoming such a
political issue. Six notable reasons for the publics’ critical view of education are the
expansion of education, creation of suburbs, national security, education's purpose,
civil right/equity, and technological transformations (Table 2.3).
Expansion of education. The expansion of education in the United States
since World War II has increased threefold. The American school system has
expanded to the point that it currently serves the needs of approximately one-fifth of
the population of the United States (Berliner & Biddle, 1995). As the education
system expanded, encompassing more and more diverse students, many Americans
began to believe that the American education system had become so large and
deficient that changes needed to be made (Berliner & Biddle, 1995).
Suburban nation. America has become a suburban nation. Between 1960
and 1995, the proportion of people living outside central cities increased 15% (Oliver,
1997). Suburbs have become so large that many suburban officials and residents
believe they are autonomous entities that are unconnected to their central cities.
Garreau (1991) calls such places “edge cities” (Gittell, 2005). These suburbs have
developed a white middle class economic and political dominance in all areas of
policy making within the United States. This has fueled a national shift to
conservatism.
National security. The Russian satellite Sputnik was launched into space in
1957 (Killian, 1977). Many Americans dreaded that the Russians were spying on
them from space. America’s scientific community seized the national mood to
rejuvenate the nation’s science curriculum. Ike’s (President Eisenhower) Scientific
Advisory Committee warned that the emphasis placed on science and math by the
Russians would put the enemy ahead of the United States as a military power in 10
years. The federal government passed the National Defense Education Act in 1958,
appropriating one billion dollars to the effort (Anderson L. W., 2007).
On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the twin towers in New York City,
the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and high-jacked an airplane that crashed in
Pennsylvania. These attacks caused much fear and anxiety among the American
people. Politicians wanting to appear as a united, bi-partisan front quickly passed
several laws and policies with little or no debate. One such law was the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (Ravitch D. , 2010).
Purpose of education. Many Americans have developed the belief that
education no longer has a clear purpose. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, when
immigration to the United States was great, education served the purpose of
Americanizing students and teaching English. Currently no two states are alike
when measuring student achievement. The states do not have a clear
understanding or direction concerning the purpose for education in the United States
as a whole. The state-led effort, shepherded by the National Governor’s Association
and the Council of Chief State School Officers of No Child Left Behind, provides that
direction by the use of standards and accountability measures. President George W.
Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 into law on January 8,
2002 (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Every state in the nation had to develop
standards describing what students should learn in school, along with establishing
the means for assessing student progress toward achieving those standards.
Civil rights/equity (war on poverty). There exists an unmistakable and
troubling connection between the accountability movement in public education and
the changing ethnic composition of America’s schools (Glass, 2008). At its core,
NCLB is a civil rights issue and requires commitment from both state and local
officials to ensure that federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, are being followed
(Dounay, 2004). The inequalities in American education mirror the inequalities in
American life more generally. The 50th anniversary of Brown versus Board of
Education is a stark reminder that school integration has not been accompanied by
equality of student academic achievement across color and income lines. The
clearly set goals of NCLB offered an unprecedented opportunity to raise
expectations and significantly narrow achievement gaps that persist in American
schools (Education Commision of the States, 2004).
ESEA Title I-1965 was formed in the context of both the war on poverty and
poverty scholarship in the early to mid-1960’s (Anderson L. W., 2007). In the
controversial expansion to what had been almost nonexistent federal involvement in
education, members of Congress portrayed passage of ESEA (Elementary and
Secondary Education Act) as a way to address or correct the culture that poor
children received at home (Stein S. J., 2004). The focus was on poverty, individual
and national security, and educational deficiencies in poor neighborhoods. Very few
of the arguments were based on the academic skills of the poor. The vast majority of
a child’s life is spent outside of school. Students come to school with unequal
preparation. Ignoring outside factors that affect children’s academic achievement
and expecting the schools to produce the same results for all will create many
unintended consequences (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010).
Economic and technological transformations. Great shifts in economy
have taken place during the past century. Heightened urban and industrial growth at
the beginning of the 20th century changed Americans views of education and allowed
education to develop for the masses. By the 1960’s, the notion of education as a
form of investment in human capital was utilized by leaders of all fields, not just
education. Education was recognized as an important component of economic
development. This supports the belief that the new economy is currently based on
information and technology within our globalized society.
Globalization is a process of integration among businesses, governments and
people of different nations. Globalization has had a profound impact on all aspects
of governance in the 21st century, including education. The phenomenon of
globalization compels leaders of government, business, and education to compete
on a global scale using schools and students as the competitors. Advances in
technology allow people to interact in new ways, such as global testing, that were
previously obscured by geographical, economic, or social boundaries (Education
Futures Editors, 2007). Access to more information has led citizens to demand more
efficiency for less money. Government agencies have responded with technological
solutions. These solutions are creating a technological divide among the people of
the United States. This divide is economically based in that not everyone has
access to the advanced technologies that are increasingly becoming necessities in
the new economy.
Many school technological efforts focus on decreasing the technological
divide by improving student access to computers and the Internet. Policymakers are
beginning to address the issue of the need for skilled workers who can transform
information to meaningful, new knowledge. The creation of new educational tools,
resources, and methods of gaining knowledge are being considered. The doubling
time of information is now under one year. In 20 years or less, doubling time may
drop to a few weeks (Education Futures Editors, 2007). Our cultural institutions
need to change with technology so that we become prepared for the future like we
are cognizant of our past and present; therefore, technological-related professional
development for teachers and administrators is imperative to ensure the economic
gap is not made greater by the technological divide.
The invention of technologies shapes culture in ways that are often
unpredictable at the birth of the invention, especially when looking at education and
economics. The invention of the television killed dance bands and the Internet is
killing used book stores. Any institution as pervasive as public education is certain to
both reflect and be shaped by the larger culture it is embedded in (Glass, 2008).
Current Perceptions of Education Deficiencies
Since 2002, forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have made changes
in their education policies that have had an impact on state laws, district regulations,
and school-operating procedures. No two states are alike, causing a growing
consensus among politicians, school leaders, and the general public that clear and
shared goals for student learning must provide a foundation on which to improve
education and achievement. The passing of the Common Core State
Standards Initiative in 2009 is believed to be a start at providing a strong foundation
built on commonality rather than contradictions. This state-led effort, coordinated by
the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Counsel of
Chief State School Officers, creates common core standards for all 50 states
(National Conference of State Legislatures 2010).
Heightened expectations have meant more political and intensified conflicts
over schooling than ever before. The failures of reform have seemed more dramatic
because the hopes of a nation are so high (Lazerson,et al).
Conclusion/Summary of LIterature
Our faith in public schools as the great equalizer remains (Meir, Kohn,
Darling-Hammond, Sizer, & Wood, 2004). The hopes and efforts to affect change in
education have been echoed in the discussions, indictments, and failings about
change in schools. Some argue that education has not changed over the last
century, while others argue that education has changed considerably. When reform
is viewed using the macro perspective, it is easy to conclude that no change has
taken place. On the other hand, the micro perspective yields that considerable
amount of change has taken place. (Table 5.1) This study will analyze policy change
through the lens of macro perspective of education reform change through the
lenses of both the macro and micro perspective of school reform.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal brought about the notion of social
responsibility among the American people. These social responsibilities have had a
lasting impact on policies enacted on behalf of society and public education. By
comparing the relationships between Roosevelt’s notions of social responsibility to
Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act with
George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act this study will explain the trends and
progress of American education as an entitled social responsibility. A review of the
literature highlights many challenges facing policy reform within the confines of an
educational setting. Changes in policy over the past decade have left many
educators disconnected between the making of a policy and implementation of that
policy.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study research is to describe the
evolution of the intentions of policies chosen and adopted during three critical eras of
education reform in the United States. According to Hatch (2002) a qualitative study
hopes to make sense of the actions, intentions and understandings of those being
studied. By explaining each policies existence and then evaluating the policies it is
hoped that this study will provide a deep understanding that educational reform does
not happen overnight but over a period of time. The second purpose of this study is
to delineate the disconnect between the making-of-policy and its implementation by
school leaders.
Research Questions (major and minor guiding research questions)
1. Why were Roosevelt’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great Society, and Bush’s
NCLB chosen and not others?
• What factors influenced the development and adoption of these
policies?
• What were the intentions of each?
• What events followed the adoption of the policies chosen?
2. What is the definition of accountability for each of the policies chosen?
• How does the Accountability Era compare to the New Deal and
Great Society Eras economically?
3. What systematic changes have taken place due to enactment of
Roosevelt’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great society, and Bush’s NCLB?
• Intended consequences of the New Deal, Great Society, and No
Child Left Behind?
• What incremental changes were experienced because of the
intended and unintended consequences?
4. What is the cause for disconnect between the making of policy and
implementation of the policy by school leaders?
Conceptual Framework
There are four main conceptual frameworks for studying this topic. According to
Nagel (1991) these frameworks are conceptual theory, theory of knowing, causal
theory, and normative theory. All four frameworks will be incorporated. I will primarily
use knowledge utilization for understanding and improving the utilization of scientific
and professional knowledge in the setting of public policy and professional practice
(Dunn, Holzner, & Zaltman, 1985, p. 2831). I will also use conceptual theory to
define what constitutes a good public policy evaluation, causal theory to determine
why some policies are adopted and others rejected, and normative theory to answer
questions of ethics (Nagel, 1990, p. 275).
Research Paradigms
One of the two research paradigms that will guide this study will be the constructivist
paradigm. According to Hatch (2002) a constructivist paradigm has multiple realities
in which the researcher and participant co-construct understandings using
naturalistic qualitative methods of research. Case studies, narratives,
interpretations, reconstructions will used for the final product (Glesne, 2006).
The second research paradigm that will also be used throughout this study
will be the critical paradigm. This paradigm views the world through the lens of race,
gender, and class. Knowledge in this paradigm is subjective and political.
Knowledge is also value mediated in the sense that that the investigator and the
investigated object are assumed to be interactively linked, with the values of the
investigator inevitable influencing the inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Data Collection Methods
Multiple methods of data collection will be employed in order to increase
triangulation. Documents such as websites, printed materials, news articles, and
photographs will be analyzed. Archival materials such as survey data, budgets, and
voting records will be analyzed.
Policy Analysis
For this study I will follow Lowham’s (1994) Policy-into-Practice Continuum.
(Table 3.1) Within the Policy-into-Practice Continuum I will incorporate the six steps
to policy evaluation. These steps are to determine the goals of the policy, select
indicators, select or develop data-collection instruments, collect data, analyze and
summarize date, write evaluation report, and respond to evaluators’ responders
(Creswell, 2008).
Trustworthiness
To ensure trustworthiness the following steps will be taken. The important
goals will be clearly stated and explained. Any goals rejected will also be reviewed
and discussed. All sources used in the collection of data will be cited completely and
accurately. Interpretation of collected data and information will be affirmed by those
participating in the research. Any uncertainties and ambiguities in theories, data,
facts, and predictions will be flagged. These steps will allow colleagues to use this
research to describe, confirm, expand, and/or inform.
Role of the Researcher
The way analysts practice their craft is greatly influenced by the nature
of their clients and the roles played by the clients in the political process (Weiner &
Vining, 1991). To develop an understanding of the intentions of the actors, the
investigator needs to be immersed in the context (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Through
the immersion, both tacit and propositional knowledge can be gathered, recognized
as legitimate, and analyzed. The observer cannot remain detached from the
participants and still hope to develop an understanding of the situation (Lowham,
1994). A case will be built for the researcher’s interpretations of the policy by
including enough detail and actual data to take the reader inside the progress of
social responsibility within public education since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Procedures for Analysis of Data (Procedures and Coding)
Through the use of policy analysis the perspective of the policy is viewed
through the actor’s point of view. “The concern then becomes about the range of
options available for addressing a particular problem and about the underlying
theoretical premises of those options (Odden A. R., 1991, p. 162)” Odden’s Policy
Analysis Instrument was used to categorize the NYA policies (See Table 4.5). The
categories of policy instruments are constructed from two main sources: existing
theories about the effects of governmental action and observed patterns in the
choice of policymakers. The categories are mandates, inducements,
capacitybuilding, and system-changing. The categories determine the effect of
federal expansion in the educational system.
Mandates draw on the theories of regulation which address the conditions
under which the targets of regulation can be expected to comply given
various levels of enforcement, sanctions, and costs and benefits of
compliance. Inducement draws on theories of public finance that deal with
intergovernmental transfers. These theories address the conditions under
which government agencies can be induced to perform certain actions by
conditional grants of funds from other governmental agencies. Capacity
building involves the conditional transfer of funds from one governmental
agency to another and introduces the additional element of investment in
uncertain future benefits. System-changing entails transfers of authority
rather than money, with the aim of altering the institutional structures by which
policies are implemented (Odden A. R., 1991, p. 162).
Evaluation Criteria
According to Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) evaluation occurs as part of daily
life. Everyone makes choices about how to spend their resources such as time,
money, and other resources. While making these choices it is necessary to evaluate
the worth of individual claims to these resources. The goal of this dissertation is to
produce scientifically valid findings by using the Policy-into-Practice Continuum
which will incorporate the Kingdon’s Three Streams of Policy Formation to accurately
state the policy maker’s goals, the degree of goal achievement, and conclusions that
relate to the accomplishments of the goals.
Significance of the Study
Policy analysis provides the opportunity to develop a greater understanding of
societal problems and possible solutions for elected and non-elected
government decision makers.
Policy analysis can also help decision makers to understand the projected
costs and potential benefits of a policy (Simon, Public Policy: Preference and
Outcomes, 2010).
Assist in expanding the sense of possibilities for future policies in education.
Limitations/Delimitations
1. Comparing the three eras of education reform, not the incremental
education policies created between the Roosevelt, Johnson, and Bush
eras.
2. Will be a holistic process.
3. Will not be researching state education policies or district education
policies.
Summary Overall Outcome
The outcomes of public policy analysis are highly varied. Policy analysis provides
the opportunity to develop a greater understanding of societal problems and
possible solutions for elected and nonelected government decision makers. Policy
analysis can also help decision makers to understand the projected costs and
potential benefits of a policy (Simon, 2007). Ultimately, the product analysis is
advice relating to public decisions and that it is informed by social values. However,
I believe that by looking at the past with the present reminds us that the current
shape of education was not inevitable. This analysis may even expand our sense of
possibilities for the future policies in education. The historical record shows that the
choices are not simply about economics and accountability but rather that the shape
and spirit of public provision matter very much to its impact (Gordon, 1994). By
lifting the constrictions of current economic developments, accountability, and
common core standards that are blocking our creative vision and choking off all
hope we can create a better educational environment for our children. Policy
problems must be addressed if Americans are to design a school system that truly
provide high standards and equal opportunities for all students (Berliner & Biddle,
1995)
CHAPTER FOUR
1933-1945
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT’S ERA OF EDUCATION POLICY
The development of federal education policy through three eras of time was
the focus of this study. The primary focus of the research was the executive branch
of the federal government. The executive branch was selected due to the
tremendous expansion in implied powers this branch of government has gained over
the last 100 years (Simon, Public Policy: Preference and Outcomes, 2010). The
actors within and the actions of the executive branch were studied in relation to the
development and implementation of education policies on the federal level. During
the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Era, at the policymaking end of the continuum are the
following participants: the President of the United States, congress, bureaucrats in
the executive branch, and various forces outside of the government (including the
media, interest groups, political parties and the general public). It is not the intention
of the researcher to imply that any of the actors were more or less important to the
development of educational policy. The historical background is important to
understanding the context in which the education policies were developed on the
federal level.
In this chapter, the story of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the elite actors are
told. In chapters V and VI, the stories of Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush
will be told. Interpretations, comparisons, and conclusions of the three eras of
education policy are presented in chapter VII.
This chapter is organized into five sections. Each section follows the
Organized Anarchy Model of Public Policymaking and Implementation (See Table
4.1) (Kingdon J. , 1984). The first section discusses the agenda or problems that
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was giving serious attention to during his presidency.
This section will also give a brief history behind the agenda of 1933. The second
section contains the agenda setting process. Section two describes the narrowing of
a set of conceivable subjects to the set that actually becomes the focus of attention.
The third section follows the three streams of policymaking. According to Kingdon
(2003), the three streams are the problem stream, the political stream, and the policy
steam. This section describes the actors, activities, and policies developed within
each stream during President Roosevelt’s time in office. The coupling of streams will
be discussed within the fourth section. Coupling occurs when the separate streams
of problems, policies, and politics come together at certain critical times. Finally,
section five will describe the acceptance/adoption phase of the Organized Anarchy
Model.
This chapter is not intended to be a summary of the history of education.
Rather, it presents the context, actors, and their actions related to one aspect of
education policy, the expansion of federal control over education. Table 4.2
illustrates the portion of the Policy-into-Practice Continuum discussed in this chapter.
Table 4.3 is an organizational chart of the policymakers involved in making policies
during this era.
Agenda
The Great Depression was the largest and most significant economic depression to
affect not only America, but also the world. The Stock Market Crash on October 29,
1929, is cited as the beginning of the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover, President
of the United States when the crash occurred, felt that the government should not
become overly involved in helping individuals deal with economic troubles. He saw
the Depression as a problem created by the private economic realm and one that
would have to be remedied by the private sector (Simon, Public Policy: Preference
and Outcomes, 2010). During the same period of time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt
was governor of New York. He viewed the Depression as clear evidence for the
need for social policy for the sake of social justice (Simon, Public Policy: Preference
and Outcomes, 2010). In 1932, Governor Roosevelt stated, “the country needs and,
unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It
is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try
another… but above all, try something” (Kennedy, 1999, p. 104). Roosevelt began
incorporating many of his ideas for relief and recovery in the states’ newly appointed
Temporary Relief Administration.
The election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as President of the United States
occurred under the shadow of the Great Depression and the new alliances that it
created. In his acceptance speech, Roosevelt declared, “I pledge you, I pledge
myself to a new deal for American people… This is more than a political campaign.
It is a call to arms” (Burns, 2011, p. 139). In response to the acute distress of the
Great Depression, the federal government, under the direction of President
Roosevelt, abandoned the policy of aloof neutrality it had pursued during earlier
nineteenth century economic debacles. Rather, President Roosevelt marshaled the
massive energies of the government on behalf of the economic welfare of the
American people (Moley, 1966). Roosevelt and the Democratic Party mobilized the
expanded ranks of the poor as well as organized labor, ethnic minorities, urbanites,
and Southern Whites, thereby crafting what was known as the New Deal coalition.
The early years of the New Deal brought about some of the most momentous
changes in the history of the United States. Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda consisted
of relief, recovery, and reform. Relief was urgently needed by tens of millions of
unemployed. Recovery meant boosting the economy back to normal. Reform
meant long-term fixes for the economic problems. It was the first time, in the history
of the United States, that the federal government assumed the responsibility to
alleviate wide spread unemployment (Lascarides, 1989). During the first hundred
days of the Roosevelt administration, however, New Dealers gave higher priority to
relief and recovery than to reform (Reiman, 1992, p. 31). The first 100 days of
President Roosevelt’s term in office also included intensive legislative activity.
Congress authorized the creation of the Agriculture Administration, Civilian
Conservation Corps, Farm Credit Administration, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, National Recovery
Administration, Public Works Administration, and Tennessee Valley Authority
(Brands, 2008; Lindley & Lindley, 1938; Reiman, 1992).
Educators were among the many professional groups hit hard by the
depression, and by 1933 it had become clear that educators were failing to meet
even their traditional responsibilities (Reiman, 1992). The United States Office of
Education was concerned about the closing of rural schools throughout the country
for lack of funds. In September 1933, 145,700 children attended no classes at all,
while 150,000 others who lacked teachers and textbooks went to school only
parttime. Capital outlays fell by more than $200 million between 1929 and 1933, and
tens of thousands of teachers received little or no pay (Smith, 2006). Many
assumed that education would become a relief project of its own (Anderson P. ,
1968).
Roosevelt’s rhetoric revealed his understanding that the nation wanted to
believe that the New Deal would forge a nation consensus. Roosevelt was also
keenly aware that the Office of Education was not an agency represented in the
President’s Cabinet. It was a relatively minor bureau located within the Department
of Interior. In August of 1933, Roosevelt informed the press that he was reluctant to
set groups apart from the whole and provide special federal aid to teachers or
students (Hiltzik, 2011). In fact, direct financial aid for schools did not become a
relief project during the New Deal; however, dozens of education bills were sent to
Congress. Most aimed to provide emergency aid to public schools as opposed to
permanent aid (Munger & Fenno Jr., 1962). During this time of crisis, though,
concerns over the danger of emergency aid to schools morphing into permanent aid
were raised, most conspicuously by John J. Douglass (D-MA), chairman of the
House Committee on Education (Munger & Fenno Jr., 1962, p. 6). The federal
government did, however, provide aid to the public schools, but it came largely
without legislation (Kosar, 2003).
There were six areas of education relief addressed among the alphabet of
relief agencies that were authorized by the Federal Emergency Relief Act and the
National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. They were literacy, vocational, worker and
adult education, vocational rehabilitation, and emergency nursery schools. These
programs were imbedded into New Deal relief programs. Education found
temporary relief in the emergency program of FERA, The Civil Works Administration,
The Works Progress Administration and the PWA. Federal money was provided to
improve, repair, and enlarge school buildings and related educational facilities
throughout the country through FERA, CWA, WPA, and PWA (Lindley & Lindley,
1938). Through the use of FERA grants, rural schools that had exhausted their
funds were able to keep schools open (Lindley & Lindley, 1938, p. 11).
Despite being supremely confident in the patriotism of American youth,
Roosevelt had to be tutored in the connection between ideologies of despair and the
idleness of Depression youth during 1933 and 1934, but the President was a quick
learner. The central place that young people occupied in Roosevelt’s thinking of
relief was demonstrated by the fact that the New Deal’s first relief effort, the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC), was largely an assault on youth unemployment
(Reiman, 1992). The Civilian Conservation Corps was drawn on ideas as old as
William James’ concept of national service as a moral equivalent of war in its
capacity to instill virtue and mobilize alienated youth to solve the problems of the day
(James, 1996, para. 26).
Several of the President’s correspondents and relief planners concluded
independently that their deepest concerns for the youth of America might best be
alleviated through a federal undertaking of certain historically local educational
activities (Reiman, 1992). The deepest concerns were establishing a democratic
alternative to what was increasingly being stated as the youth problem. The first
problem was the attitudes of young people shut off from opportunity and schooling.
Tyrants abroad were turning European youth against democracy, exploiting idealism
native to all youth, and demonstrating how easily America’s young might suffer a
similar experience. (Reiman, 1992). It was felt that American youth needed training
in ideological values of democracy. The second problem was the lack of equal
opportunity for education by all youth. In 1933 and 1934, tens of thousands of
youths, doubting that the schools would ever offer them the job training demanded
by a depressed economy, were abandoning the schools (Reiman, 1992). According
to New Dealers, both problems could be addressed through the same program,
thereby giving education assistance via economic relief programs.
Relief agencies for youth continually met with the President’s avid interest.
From the CCC, which Roosevelt saw as his pet project, to the FERA, which involved
a surprisingly diverse array of education services for youth and others, the New Deal
role in education seemed heavily weighted toward relief and federal administration.
By 1935, FERA planners were going public with their conviction that the government
must help a group ignored by the schools: youth of low-income families (Tyack,
Lowe, & Hansot, 1984). In 1935, Congress authorized the creation of the Works
Progress Administration (WPA), National Labor Relations Board, and Rural
Electrification administration in what became known as the second New Deal. The
WPA focused on smaller projects and hired unemployed, unskilled workers. In close
cooperation with the local governments, the WPA hired only people on relief who
were directly paid by the government. The WPA also oversaw the National Youth
Administration (NYA), projects for women, and arts projects, which set the stage for
expansion of federal government involvement into domestic economic affairs,
ideological guidance, and educational funding (Ballantyne, 2002).
Agenda Setting Process
The agenda setting process is the first step in the policy process. Before an
issue can be acted upon, it must become a recognized part of the policy agenda
(Simon, Public Policy: Preference and Outcomes, 2010, p. 83). According to Cobb &
Elder (1972) agenda setting may involve the transfer of items from a
nongovernmental systemic agenda to a governmental formal agenda. This suggests
that “decisions about national interest are the result of a political process in which a
country’s leaders ultimately arrive at a decision about the importance of a given
internal event or crisis in relation to the country’s well-being, in other words, basic
national interests” (Nuechterlein, 1978, p. 3). The way that the government deals
with internal issues is referred to as public interest or domestic policy. Basic national
interests can be described as defense interests, economic interests, world order
interests, and ideological interests (Nuechterlein, 1978). Education falls under all
four categories of interest, making the role of education an integral piece in the
agenda setting process. Within the agenda setting process, education policy is a
reactive process that responds to the needs of the public interest.
Reactive process in education. The enactment of both the Federal
Emergency Relief Act of 1933 and the Social Security Act in 1935, marked the
beginning of a significant shift from emergency relief and private charity to a system
of federal public work programs and the creation of a federal-state social safety net
for the temporarily unemployed and the poor, aged, blind, and dependent children
(Hopkins, 2011). The federal government was trying to preserve the morale and
skills of the heads of indigent families by creating emergency work programs. For
millions of younger children in families receiving relief, food, clothing, shelter, and
schooling were the essential guarantees against the degeneration of the human
assets of the nation, but youth between the ages of 15-24 needed something more
(Lindley & Lindley, 1938). The youth problem according to Charles Taussig,
President of the American Molasses Company was caused by the following specific
deficiencies within the basic national interests of the people: 1. Not enough jobs to
take care of the youth; 2. An educational system not adequate in size or character to
prepare youth for work opportunities; 3. Nationally, a lack of equal opportunities for
education; and 4. A gap measured in years between the time when youth leave
school and when they find work (Lindley & Lindley, 1938, p. ix). Each one of these
problems can be described as a national interest using Nuechterlein’s (1978) four
areas of interests. The four national interests are world order, economic, defense,
and ideological interests.
The first problem, not enough jobs, is strictly an economic interest. Problem
number two, an education system not adequate in preparing youth for work
opportunities, falls into two areas of interest, economic and world order. Lack of
equal opportunity for education is the third problem. This problem is economic and
ideological in nature. Roosevelt was sympathetic to the idea of helping American
youth find jobs and help senior citizens maintain their dignity so as to neutralize the
attractiveness of un-American creeds and to ensure democracy. The final problem,
the gap between when youth leave school and when they find work, would be
considered economic and defense interests. During this gap of time, society
completely abandons the youth, which encourages criminal activities to take place.
In some countries, mandatory military service takes up part of the slack. In others,
frustrated youth have flocked into the shirted private armies of dictators, actual or
aspiring. From the beginning, Taussig (Lindley & Lindley, 1938, p. ix) believed that
the American solution to these problems must be predicated on the maintenance
and reinforcement of the family unit.
Factors affecting the agenda setting process. Two categories of factors
have an effect on the agenda setting process: the participants who were active in
setting the agenda and the processes by which agenda items and alternatives come
into prominence (Kingdon, 2003).
Participants. Policies create an environment of exchange relationships
between the players and the actors (Meltsner & Bellavita, 1983), but before any
exchange can take place, one must know who the players and actors are. (Table
4.3) In general, the principal actors in policy formation are the legitimate, or formal,
policy makers: people who occupy positions in the governmental arena that entitle
them to authoritatively assign priorities and commit resources (Nakamura &
Smallwood, 1980). For effective action to take place within the agenda setting
process, each stakeholder must have knowledge, understanding, and awareness of
the policy environment and his/her role within that environment. At a minimum, the
actors in the executive branch, including the President of the United States,
congress, bureaucrats are expected to set the general boundaries in which the
creation and implementation of a policy will occur (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).
Various forces outside of the government (including the media, interest groups,
political parties, and the general public) all have a stake in policy-making process.
The President of the United States. The president’s role in the policy-making
process is complicated. “Presidents not only face the demand to explain what they
have done and intend to, but have come under increasing pressure to speak out on
perceived crises and to mister to the moods and emotions of the populace” (Ceaser,
Thuroe, Tulis, & Ressette, Year, p. 236) In addition “the President’s agenda is often
national in scope, whereas legislators are interested in local benefit” (Simon, Public
Policy: Preference and Outcomes, 2010, p. 76). Bureaucrats are interested in the
ideological maintenance. According to Rein and Rabovitz (1978), the bureaucrats
during the Roosevelt administration tended to follow the rational–bureaucratic
imperative approach to their jobs. When advancing ideas for policy, they tended to
follow a course of action they felt was morally correct, administratively feasible, and
intellectually defensible course of action. Finally the forces outside of the
government were concerned about the economic welfare of the American people
(Moley, 1966) as relief was urgently needed by tens of millions of unemployed.
Roosevelt and the Democratic Party mobilized the expanded ranks of the poor as
well as organized labor, ethnic minorities, urbanites, and Southern Whites, thereby
crafting what was known as the New Deal coalition. Secondly, they held concerns
for the youth of America and how best to assist the poor youth through a federal
undertaking of certain historically local educational activities (Reiman, 1992). Those
outside of government wanted to establish a democratic alternative to what was
increasingly being stated as the youth problem.
Processes. As stated previously, effective action within each stakeholder’s
role requires knowledge, understanding, and awareness of the policy environment
including the processes by which agenda items and alternatives come into
prominence. A policy is a course of action that could be a law, a regulation, a
project, or other public decision. Knowledge of the impacts of a policy can lead
policymakers to take or change a position on a policy or to work to amend a policy.
Understanding the intended and unintended consequences of a proposed policy can
affect what the policy will be, whether the policy is adopted, and how effective it will
be (Loomis, 2001). For example, the various direct and indirect aids to youth
provided during the first two years of the Roosevelt Administration cost considerable
money and effort, and it soon became evident that they were inadequate (Lindley &
Lindley, 1938).
Diffusion of ideas in professional circles and among elites. In The
Diffusion of Innovations among the American States, Jack L. Walker (1969) states
that “issues may reach the agenda through diffusion of ideas in professional circles
and among policy elites, particularly bureaucrats. A contributor to government
agendas might be a process of gradual accumulation of knowledge and perspectives
among the specialists in a given policy area and the generation of policy proposals
by such specialists.” Independent of science or knowledge, ideas may seep into
policy communities like fads, or may be built gradually through a process of constant
discussion, speeches, hearings, and bill introductions (Walker, 1969). Furthermore,
changes in agenda may result from a change in party control or interparty ideological
balances brought by elections (Ginsberg, 1976; Sinclair, 1977; Brady, 1982).
Congressional-executive relations play a role in agenda setting, as well as in other
elements of the policy-making process.
As the magnitude and long-term social hazards of the idle youth problem
became more apparent in 1933 and 1934, many persons urged that the federal
government try to deal with it in a more comprehensive manner (Lindley & Lindley,
1938)These people felt that their deepest concerns might be alleviated through a
federal undertaking of certain historically local educational activities (Reiman, 1992).
Among the people voicing their concerns, the most notable were Mrs. Roosevelt; Mr.
Charles W. Taussig, President of American Molasses Company; Mr. Harry L.
Hopkins, FERA Administrator; other officials of FERA; the Children’s Bureau; and the
Office of Education (Department of Labor, March and April 1935).
The President’s task is complicated by other factors as well. First, the
President’s agenda is often national in scope, whereas legislators are interested in
local benefit. Second, different terms of office impact the effectiveness of legislators.
Third, although the President faces term limits, members of Congress and the
Senate do not. Finally, the President’s agenda-setting ability is complicated by a
divided government, as is the case when the President and the majority of Congress
represent different political parties (Simon, Public Policy: Preference and Outcomes,
2010). In the agenda-setting process, Presidents are particularly interested in
advancing agenda items that will have a reasonable chance of becoming policy
(Simon, Public Policy: Preference and Outcomes, 2010).
It is perceived by the general public that policy makers are motivated by
political ideology and the needs of the people when developing new policies. If this
perception is distorted, as was the case at the onset of the Depression, a
disconnection between the policy making actors and clients will occur. To change
the attitudes of the clients towards a new policy requires a powerful propaganda
campaign (Levin, 2008). Fortunately, President Roosevelt was a master
communicator. According to Betty Houch Winfield Roosevelt’s presidency is often
referred to as the yardstick for measuring how well contemporary presidents
communicate and mold public opinion (Winfield, 1990). Furthermore, he sought
good advice. In mid-March 1932, Samuel Rosenman advised Franklin Roosevelt to
assemble from the universities the beginnings of a team that could provide him with
adequate background on the whole range of issues they would shortly facing (Black
C. , 2003). The group of advisors became known as FDR’s Brain Trust. The term
Brain Trust is generally used for a group of close advisors to a political candidate or
incumbent, prized for their expertise in particular fields. Members of FDR’s first brain
trust consisted of Columbia law professors Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and
Adolf Berle. Members of FDR’s second brain trust consisted of men associated with
the Harvard law school: Cohen, Corcoran, and Frankfurter. According to Black
(2003), the members of the Brain Trust were not considered long-term players in the
political scene, and when they were no longer considered useful to President
Roosevelt, the members of his entourage would usually depart the administration as
if through a trap door.
The American political environment changed rapidly in the mid to late 1930’s.
During the 1932 elections, the people of the United States voted into office a
Democrat for President as well as a Democratic Congress (see Figure 4.4). The
executive administration and the Congress created a series of new political
institutions designed to manage the economy in light of the Depression experience
(Sinyai, 2006). Within the first 100 days of office, President Roosevelt submitted 15
bills and all 15 bills were passed.
The so-called series of alphabetic economic relief agencies had a disastrous
effect on the funding of public education, causing conflict between the federal
government and public schools throughout much of the Depression. Conflict
stemmed around the issue of how to best structure the social and societal context of
American youths aged 15-18 in order to promote the normal production of physical,
mental, and civic competence (Ballantyne, 2008).
The National Youth Administration program was different. This organization
set out to do something specifically for the youth in poverty. At the outset three basic
decisions were made. The first decision was that the administration of the program
should be decentralized. Second, the fullest efforts should be made to enlist the
active cooperation of all state and local agencies interested in youth.
Finally, ample room should be left for experimentation (Lindley & Lindley, 1938).
Processes (Streams)
The more that case studies and the place of various actors in processes of
policy formation are examined, the more one concludes that attempting to pinpoint a
single origin is futile. Instead, a complex combination of factors is generally
responsible for the movement of a given item into agenda prominence (Kingdon,
2003). Therefore, basic to the Model of Organized Anarchy is the presence of three
streams of processes that tease out the messiness, disjointedness, humanity, and
luck of policymaking (Henry, 2007). The streams are referred to as the problem
stream, political stream, and policy stream. These streams flow independently of
one another until they converge to create a window of opportunity for restructuring of
either a governmental agenda or a decision agenda (See Table 4.7).
The problem stream. The problem stream involves focusing the public’s and
policymaker’s attention on a particular social problem, defining the problem, and
applying a new public policy to the problem (See Figure 4.8). Many times problems
come to the attention of governmental decision makers not through some sort of
political pressure or perceptual sleight of hand, but because some more or less
systematic indicator simply shows that there is a problem out there (Kingdon, 1995).
The youth problem of the Depression era was such a problem. In 1932, when
discussing the problem concerning youth in America, Franklin D. Roosevelt
declared, “any neglected group can infect our whole nation and produce widespread
misery” (McCraw, April 1993)
Indicators. Historians typically date the start of the Great Depression to Black
Tuesday, October 29, 1929, when a long period of unrestrained corporate greed
(dating back to the 1890’s) precipitated a national stock market crash (Wecter, 1948;
Shannon, 1960; Bird, 1966; Chandler, 1970; Duboff, 1989; Ballantyne; 2008).
Farmers and more rural cities, however, had been feeling the fiscal crunch
throughout the 1920’s as the European demand for American agricultural produce
steadily decreased (Silverman, 1982). Foreign demand for manufactured goods in
turn began to slump and by the time of the big crash, two out of every three
American families was already poor (Hill, 1990). The great industrial Depression of
1929 found the United States government unprepared to meet the major relief
problems caused by its disastrous effects. When Roosevelt was inaugurated on
March 4, 1933, nearly 13,000,000 persons, or 25 percent of the nation’s workforce,
were already unemployed and banks had been closed in thirty-eight states
(Bernstein, 1970; Ballantyne, 2008).
Problems are sometimes not self-evident by the major indicators and often
something drastic needs to happen to get the attention of people in and around
government (Kingdon, 1995). That was provided by the Depression. Soon after his
inauguration, President Roosevelt put into place a more radical policy of direct
federal economic intervention appropriately called the “New Deal” (Bernstein, 1985).
Roosevelt’s series of radio talks, known as fireside chats, presented his proposals
directly to the American public (Burns, 1956). In August of 1933, President Franklin
D. Roosevelt spoke to the press and addressed the mounting public interest in the
relationship between the New Deal and American students. He insisted that his
administration would do all it could to stay out of the business of channeling direct
federal aid to high school student or their teachers (Presidential Press Conference,
1933). Even as President Roosevelt delivered this speech, he was fully aware of the
intellectual excitement within his administration that was just then supplying the
ingredients for a New Deal on behalf of the youth of America (Reiman, 1992).
Between 1933 and much of 1934, the new administration had to contend with
a sizable portion of American society that wanted to continue to employ the existing
public institutions to remedy the ailing economy. The early programs under the
National Recovery Administration were, therefore, quintessentially conservative.
They were aimed at rescuing or reforming the old economy rather than transforming
its structural underpinnings (Schwartz, 1982; Susman, 1983; Ballantyne, 2008).
During this same period of time, a growing problem among youth ages 15-25
needed to be addressed. One of many concerns the federal government had was
establishing a democratic alternative to what was increasingly being stated as the
youth problem. The first problem was “the attitudes of young people shut off from
opportunity and schooling” (Reiman, 1992, p. 43). Tyrants abroad were turning
European youth against democracy, exploiting idealism native to all youth, and
demonstrating how easily America’s young might suffer a similar experience
(Reiman, 1992). The second issue involved labor leaders, businessmen, and
conservative educators worried publicly about the form that federal assistance might
take (Lindley & Lindley, 1938).
Feedback. In 1933, the American Federation of Teachers and the National
Education Association formed a joint committee to recommend solutions for the
financial problems facing education. The Joint Commission on the Emergency in
Education recommended the pursuit of direct federal aid to education and state tax
reform (Ballantyne, 2002) neither of which was received well. President Roosevelt
wanted the CCC. The idea of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) unnerved
Raymond Moley, leader of Roosevelt’s Brain Trust. To appease him, on March 14,
1933, President Roosevelt allowed Moley to send a memo and a skeleton of the bill
to Francis Perkins (Labor Secretary), Henry Wallace (Secretary of Agriculture),
HaroId Ickes (Interior Secretary), and George Dern (Secretary of War) whose
cabinet departments would have to be involved in any effort to recruit workers for
regimented labor (Hiltzik, 2011). The next day the four secretaries responded in a
joint response by proposing a wider relief program, encompassing not only a Civilian
Conservation Corps, but a public works program and grants-in-aid to states and
municipalities for relief (Hiltzik, 2011).
There were misgivings among special interests. American Federation of
Labor President William Green told a joint House-Senate committee that the
measure smacked of fascism of Hitlerism, of a form of sovietism (Hiltzik, 2011). Also
expressing concern was James Warburg:
The New Deal is trying to create a calf with five legs. This is not because
there are people in Washington who are trying to foist one thing or another
upon the country-there are such people, but they checkmate each other and
more or less cancel out each other’s efforts. It is because we the American
people have demanded of our government a calf with five legs. And it is
because our Government is not following any one definite policy, except the
policy of trying to give everyone at least a little of what he wants or what it
thinks he wants. Therefore it is important that we should make up our minds
what it is that we want, and-more important still-whether we want what we are
getting (Warburg, 1934).
Budget prioritization. Budget prioritization during this era involved the
following relief programs: Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), Civil Works
Administration (CWA), Federal Economic Relief Act (FERA), Federal Housing
Administration (FHA), Federal Security Agency (FSA), Home Owner’s (HOLC),
National Relief Act (NRA), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the Works Project
Administration (WPA) (Brands, 2008; Lindley & Lindley, 1938). These programs
salvaged the lives of tens of millions of people from utter misery and hopelessness,
endowed the country with vast infrastructure, and revitalized much of the
environment through work relief programs.
The various forms of aid provided to youth during the first two years of the
Roosevelt Administration were costly and inadequate (Lindley & Lindley, 1938).
President Roosevelt at first balked at spending more money for youth. He felt that
the CCC, college student aid, and other incidental aids already provided for were
taking as much of the total budget expenditures as necessary for the youth of the
nation, but the problem intensified with more and more youth feeling shut off from
opportunity and schooling. The question became how to budget for a special
Federal Youth Agency and not have it misconstrued as a regimented, political
organization similar to those being formed in Europe. According to (Reiman, 1992),
the answer seemed clear - pass it off as not ideological training, but simply the
provision by the federal government of the kinds of skills the young people needed
and the existing economy demanded. Following the appropriation of $4,880,000,000
for work relief, President Roosevelt decided to establish the National Youth
Administration, by Executive Order Number 7086, on June 26, 1935 (U.S.
Government, 1937). The President allotted $50,000,000 for its use during the fiscal
year (Lindley & Lindley, 1938).
Problem definition. Throughout the Great Depression, the public schools
and the federal government were in conflict regarding the proper means to avoid
wasting a generation of youth potential. The argument was over how to best
structure the social and societal context of American youths aged 15-18 in order to
promote the normal production of physical, mental, and civic competence
(Ballantyne, 2008). The biggest debates concerning the youth problem involved
issues of values, equality, efficiency, and liberty.
Values. The ideological installments of democratic values and public image
management were important undercurrents for the war on the depression
(Ballantyne, 2008). The historical roots of these values are deeply embedded in the
cultural streams that comprise the common heritage of the United States. These
values permeate the ideologies promulgated by political parties, religions, schools,
and other social institutions (Kingdon J. W., Agendas, alternatives, and public
policies, 2003).
Equality. During the Depression, the federal government and the courts began
to apply the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause to a spectrum of social
conditions, such as voting rights, housing, employment, and education. By 1935,
FERA planners were going public with their conviction that Washington must help a
group ignored by the schools and the public: youth of low-income families (Tyack,
Lowe, & Hansot, 1984) The quality of schooling that a child received depended
largely where they lived. Some areas and communities lacked schools that were
passably good by any standard of measurement. Many children and youth did not
have “economic means to take advantage of existing school facilities as were
available” (Lindley & Lindley, 1938, p. 195). The inequality of education could be
viewed using three pivotal points: property taxes and state expenditures, amount of
time school was open for instruction, and national income earnings. “This
undemocratic inequality of education opportunity could only be corrected with the
assistance of the federal government” (Lindley & Lindley, 1938, p. 195); however, it
was believed that the NYA would create a bridge to off-set and neutralize this
inequality.
Efficiency. It is desirable that an endeavor be completed efficiently as it
provides for the conservation of resources, which can then be used for other
endeavors, thus achieving greater equality or expanding choice (Bardach, 2009). Of
course, the costs of changes or negotiations, insecurity, hard feelings, and such
must also be taken into account when implementing a new and seemingly smart
practice (Bardach, 2009). Alternatively, if institutions and people are forever being
reformed and reinvented and remodeled - as occurs in many public school systems -
there may be benefits to stability, consistency, and focus.
The increasing technical complexity of 19th century industrialization
necessitated a more highly educated workforce. This condition provoked
widespread provision of public schooling and in later periods, was seen as an
important contributor to economic efficiency. Being hit hard by the Depression also
meant that school administrators were more concerned with the practical issues of
basic curriculum, staffing, and maintaining facilities. Roosevelt’s Civilian
Conservation Corps and the National Youth Administration would fight the war on the
Depression and would prevent the American youth involvement in crime and
extremist politics.
Liberty. Authority is vested in the citizenry. Governmental authority is
dispensed widely which allows for the separation of powers between the three
branches of government as well as the various levels of government. “Efforts to
inhibit accumulation of power also accounts for the deliberate fragmentation of
decision-making authority, with some specific powers accorded to the federal
government, some accorded to the states, and some reserved for the people
themselves” (Anderson L. W., 2007, p. 85).
The belief in liberty dominated the thinking of the Founding Fathers of the
United States who had English royal tyranny much on their minds. Liberty is the
“cardinal right” (Henkin, 1996, p. 5). For Americans, liberty means the freedom to
choose, to be able to select from among different courses of action, and the desire
for choice fuels the historical American affection for a market economy. Competition
among producers, along with other benefits, expands the range of items from which
consumers can choose. The Civil Conservation Corps and National Youth
Administration would give young workers choice through education. Education not
only offered relief but also acted as an important tool to maintain democracy (Black
A. , 1996).
Comparisons. Problems sometimes involve comparisons. If one is not
achieving what others are achieving, and if one believes in equality, then the relative
disadvantage constitutes a problem (Kingdon, 1995). Sometimes people make
these comparisons across nations, so the mere fact of being behind in “the greatest
country on earth” is enough to constitute a problem for some people” (Kingdon,
2003, p. 111)
The educational aspects of the WPA, FERA, and the youth programs were not
aimed at all segments of the population. They were specifically designed for the
poor and staffed largely by people already on relief (Tyack, Lowe, & Hansot, 1984).
This was a new style of education premised on the notion that all kinds of people can
teach and that learning can take place in various settings. The New Deal programs
were designed to supplement rather than supplant the standard public school
system (Ballantyne, 2002).
Categories. The first step at analyzing anything is to place it in its proper
category. People will see a problem quite differently if it is put into one category
rather than another, thus much of the struggle over problem definition centers on the
categories that will be used and the ways they will used. It may not be possible to
judge a problem by its category, but its category structures people’s perceptions of
the problem in many important respects. “The agenda setting process raises two
questions. First, why do changes occur in the agenda setting process? The second
is why some issues are more prominent than others. The answer to these questions
lies within two categories. The “two categories of factors to have an effect on the
agenda setting process: the participants/actors who are active in setting the agenda
and the processes by which agenda items and alternatives come into prominence”
(Kingdon, 2003, p. 15).
Participants/actors in the agenda setting process. In general, the principal
actors in policy formation are the legitimate, or formal, policy makers: people who
occupy positions in the governmental arena that entitle them to authoritatively assign
priorities and commit resources (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). Effective action
within each stakeholder’s role requires knowledge, understanding, and awareness of
the policy environment. Policies create an environment of exchange relationships
between the players and the actors (Meltsner & Bellavita, 1983). At a minimum, the
actors in the executive branch, including the President of the United States,
Congress, and bureaucrats, are expected to set the general boundaries in which the
creation and implementation of a policy will occur (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).
Various forces outside of the government, including the media, interest groups,
political parties and the general public, also have a stake in policy-making process.
Political stream. Within the political stream the government agenda, the list
of issues or problems to be resolved is formed. For the purposes of this study,
political is defined as the political motivations and the efforts needed to obtain
support of important interest group leaders. The Great Depression had devastated
the nation. In his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for president,
Franklin Roosevelt promised a New Deal for the people of the United States:
“Throughout the nation, men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy
of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable
opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth…I pledge myself to a
new deal for the American people. This is more than a political campaign. It
is a call to arms” (Title of Article, July 1932).
Major forces affecting the political stream.
Public policy could treat political motivations and the efforts needed to obtain
support as something outside of the policymaking process. However, without
knowing why there are shifts in attitudes and motivations we would be missing on
very important stream. (See Table 4.8)
National mood. In January of 1933, 15 million people were unemployed.
Many had lost not only their jobs, but their savings and homes and were dependent
on relief money from the government to survive. Businesses and banks had closed,
and production and sales of goods and services had been severely reduced. Most
federal relief efforts had been mired for some time in a quagmire of political and
legislative wrangling. Little aid or direction had actually reached the state level. The
widespread unemployment kept even more children in school. A federal law was
finally passed that banned child labor, and all states required school attendance, at
least until age sixteen. (Place). Political and business leaders feared revolution and
anarchy.
Organized interests. During 1932 and 1933, a growing number of teachers
who were not employed applied for relief after their resources had become
exhausted. Shortly after the FERA was initiated, something was attempted to assist
that group of needy teachers. Obviously, it was hardly enough to give them direct
relief. With thousands of teachers out of work, there were, at the same time,
hundreds of thousands of men and women in need of educational facilities. It was
decided to put the unemployed teachers to work teaching those unemployed who
wanted instruction (Hopkins PhD., 2011). In the early 1930’s, nearly 100,000
students returned to their alma mater high schools for post-graduate training (Reese,
2005). Another alternative was Arthurdale School was developed as part of
President Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which set up the first
federal subsistent program (Stack, 1999).
Changes in government: Expansion of federal power. The rise of the
Progressive Era in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century produced a
significant and lasting shift in federalism. Cooperative federalism involved the notion
of shared policy goals at all levels of government (Simon, Public Policy: Preference
and Outcomes, 2010). The American political environment changed rapidly in the
mid to late 1930’s. During the 1932 elections, the people of the United States voted
into office a Democratic President and Congress. The executive administration and
the Congress created a series of new political institutions designed to manage the
economy in light of the Depression (Sinyai, 2006). (See Table 4.4) Cooperative
federalism characterized much of the New Deal programming. The New Deal
programs also advanced the health and welfare needs of citizens and promoted
economic and social development. Despite the growing presence of national
government, state and local governments retained significant responsibility in
crafting public policy. Cooperative federalism promoted a shared mission but did not
create uniformity (Simon, Public Policy: Preference and Outcomes, 2010).
Visible cluster of policy actors. Eleanor Roosevelt built a creative and
productive political marriage. Although Eleanor Roosevelt always understated the
impact she had on the process, she had quickly realized the leverage gained from
easy access to the seat of power and she cleared the path for colleagues who had
issues to discuss and candidates to promote (Scharf, 1987). Never before had a
potential first lady appeared on the national scene with comparable expertise and
independent political base (Scharf, 1987). Ultimately, Eleanor Roosevelt exerted
great influence on both the Democratic Party and on America’s attitude toward liberal
reform (Black C. , 2003).
Louis Howe was often credited with successfully steering Franklin Delano
Roosevelt into politics especially after he succumbed to polio (Levin, 2008). Howe
was President Roosevelt’s coach, mentor, and confidant (Adams, 1977). According
to James Roosevelt (1976), Louis Howe was probably the greatest influence in both
the President’s and the First Lady’s lives. Howe didn’t pull any punches with
Roosevelt, and Roosevelt paid him the same compliment (Fenster, 2009).
As the head of a group of policy advisers and speechwriters known as the
Brain Trust, Raymond Moley was essential to Roosevelt in translating his ideas into
action; however, by 1936, the New Deal had swept beyond what Moley regarded as
prudent limits and he became outspoken in opposition (Moley, 1966).
Harold Ickes, the Interior Secretary, “thought no better investment could be
made than the money paid out to provide education and skills to those needing them
as well as safeguarding the health of the people. Ickes believed that sound,
welltrained minds and bodies would add more to the actual prosperity of the United
States then monetary handouts” (White & Maze, 1985, p. 232).
Francis C. Perkins earned a master’s degree in social economics from
Columbia University. She was appointed as the Labor Secretary by President
Roosevelt1933. During her time as Labor Secretary she effectively pushed for
Social Security, for minimum wage, maximum workweeks, and limits on the
employment of children under sixteen.
Harry Hopkins was considered one of President Roosevelt’s closest advisors.
He was a man of action rather than of ideas, a mixture of cynicism and idealism of
pragmatism and sentiment (Adams, 1977). Hopkins graduated from Grinnell
College and began his career working for charitable organizations in New York City.
Harry was the former president and executive director of the New York State
Temporary Emergency Relief Administration; Chief Architect and Chief Officer of the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration; and director of the Civil Works
Administration, the Federal Surplus Relief Administration, and the Works Progress
Administration. At all times, Hopkins favored opportunities to produce jobs rather
than provide direct financial relief (Brands, 2008). Hopkins wanted projects that
could start immediately and would take men off of relief as soon as possible (White &
Maze, 1985). Hopkins came to be regarded as the Chief Apostle of the New Deal
and the one most cordially hated by its enemies (Historynet.com, 2011).
Steven Early was the first press secretary, and he and Roosevelt launched a
breathtaking reorganization of the methods used by the federal government to
communicate with the public. Early and Roosevelt used press conferences in ways
no previous Presidents had. Roosevelt held two press conferences per week and all
accredited journalist were welcome. Early conducted press conferences daily and
expanded press offices into federal agencies to act as spokesmen for the New Deal.
Newspapers began quoting him on a regular basis. He established Roosevelt’s
fireside chats, and he ensured that Roosevelt appeared regularly on the movie
screens of America. Early became the principal link of communication between the
White House and the public (Levin, 2008). Harold Ickes stated, “I do not believe that
President Roosevelt ever had anyone on his staff with such sound judgment as to
how the country would feel about some particular act or expression” (Levin, 2008).
James Roosevelt called Early and his father “pals” and he said, Early, once in the
White House, became part of the inner-circle, high level discussions” (Roosevelt,
1976).
Other important advisors included Napoleon Hill, Paul M. O’Leary, George
Peek, Charles William Taussig, Robert F. Wagner, and F. Palmer Weber.
Policy stream. Within the policy stream, proposals, alternatives, and
solutions float about, are discussed, are revised, and are discussed again (See Table
4.9). The policy window is an opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their pet
solutions or to push attention to their special projects (Kingdon J. W., Agendas,
alternatives, and public policies, 2003, p. 165). Major forces affecting the policy
stream are not political, but instead intellectual and personal.
Ideas. FERA granted money to each state so that it could choose to develop
or emphasize any or all of the following, depending on local conditions: general adult
education, literary classes for adults, vocational education, vocational rehabilitation,
and nursery schools for pre-school children from underprivileged homes (Lindley &
Lindley, 1938). Another part of the emergency education program was the college
student aid program. It provided part-time employment for those college students
who would otherwise have been unable to continue their education. The projects for
the students were planned and supervised in large part by the college authorities
(Lindley & Lindley, 1938).
Policy entrepreneurs. People who are trying to advocate change are like
surfers waiting for the big wave. They get out where they need to be in the ocean.
Once there they need to be ready to go. They need to be ready to paddle. If they
are not ready, they will not be able to ride the wave into the beach (Kingdon J. W.,
Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2003). Policy entrepreneurs are
advocates who are willing to invest their resources, time, energy, reputation, and
money to promote a position in return for anticipated future gains in the form of
material, purposive or solidary benefits. A policy entrepreneur has to have claim to
the hearing, has to be known for his political connections, and be persistent. Policy
entrepreneurs included William Randolph Hearst, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., William
Gibbs McAdoo, Laura Spellman Rockefeller, and John Dewey as important outside
policy entrepreneurs during the Roosevelt years. However when dealing with the
youth problem Mrs. Roosevelt, Harry L. Hopkins, FERA Administrator, Harold Ickes,
and Charles Taussig , President of the American Molasses Company were the main
entrepreneurs. As the magnitude and long-term social hazards of the idle youth
problem became more apparent in 1933-1934, these people urged the President to
allow the Federal Government to try and deal with the problem in a more
comprehensive manner than the CCC had (Lindley & Lindley, 1938, p. 13).
Coupling of Streams/Convergence
The separate streams of problems, politics, and policies come together at
certain critical times. (See Table 4.6) Solutions become joined to problems, and both
of them are joined to favorable political forces. This coupling is most likely when a
policy window - an opportunity to push pet proposals or one’s conceptions of
problems - is open (Kingdon, 2003). Windows open when there is a shift in the
national mood, usually indicated by transformative elections, or new popular
perceptions. If a window opens and results in a restructuring of the governmental
agenda, it could be solely the result of occurrences in either the problem stream or
the political stream. Decision agenda, however, requires the merging of all three
streams. In this case, the role of the policy entrepreneur is critical. “The rapid
expansion of government programs that occurred during Roosevelt’s term, especially
the first 100 days, redefined the role of the government in the United States, and
Roosevelt’s advocacy of government social programs was instrumental in redefining
liberalism for coming generations” (Schlesinger, 1962). Roosevelt’s point was plain:
government counts, and in the right hands, it can be made to work.
Strong federal action, not just private voluntary efforts and the invisible
hand of the marketplace was required to help those stricken in an
emergency. The American people expected and deserved leadership
in addressing their hardships, not just from state and local authorities,
but also from the White House (Alter, 2006, p. 299).
During Roosevelt’s time in office there were two distinctive periods
when coupling of streams occurred. The first coupling of the streams occurred
during the first one hundred days of Roosevelt’s first term in office. The second
occurred during the 1935 session of Congress.
Acceptance/Adoption
Within each stream consequences happen. According to Schlesinger (2000),
a theory of regional organization was linked to Roosevelt’s New Deal. The
organization consisted of a series of programs that attempted to carry out political,
business, and social reform. The result of Roosevelt’s efforts was a new social
contract that informally bound his successors to confront major domestic and
international problems rather than leave them entirely to the marketplace or other
nations. Roosevelt was a person open to social improvement through change. “As
a person open to social improvement he felt that one of his greatest obligations
remained to the less fortunate, an idea that cleaves American politics to this day”
(Alter, 2006, p. 332) President Roosevelt created the National Youth Administration
by executive order No. 7086 on June 26, 1935, as a division of the Works Progress
Administration (U.S. Government, 1937, p. 1). The National Youth Act involved youth
who were less fortunate. Through the NYA programs work and education were
merged. The NYA had four objectives:
1. To provide funds for the part-time employment of needy work projects
of needy school, college, and graduate students between 16 and 25 years of
age so that they can continue their education.
2. To provide funds for the part-time employment on work projects of
young persons, chiefly from relief families, between 18 and 25 years of age-
the projects being designed not only to give these young people valuable
work experience, but to benefit youth generally and the communities in which
they
live.
3. To encourage the establishment of job training, counseling, and
placement of services for youth.
4. To encourage the development and extension of constructive leisure-
time activities (U.S. Government, 1937, p. 1).
Funds appropriated through the Emergency Relief Act of 1935 for the NYA
amounted to $43,806,268. Education was not only a relief effort but also an
important tool to maintain democracy (Affiliated Schools for Workers, October 1933).
Conclusion
The American political environment changed rapidly in the mid to late 1930’s.
The members of Congress created a series of new institutions managed by the
government that were designed to help the economy in light of the Depression
(Sinyai, 2006). The original purpose of the New Deal’s CCC and NYA programs was
to put unemployed youth to work, but it only reached a fraction of those who were in
need. By 1943 when the NYA was cut from the budget nearly 5 million youth had
received jobs that allowed for the continuation of their education either in school or
on the job training that otherwise would not have had such an opportunity. “The goal
was to return young people to schools, either high school or college to better prepare
them for socially constructive lives” (Rauch, 1963, p. 169). Although the connection
was indirect NYA was the first national agency to possess the federalized funding
that would be used for future student aid programs. In all cases work experience
was used rather than direct relief payment was used to assist in providing self-reliant
skills to the young people. The sudden demand for labor and troops in World War II
seemed to end the youth problem by eliminating the considerable gap between
school completion and work. With the bombing of Pearl
Harbor, the United States officially entered World War II and called a halt to both the
CCC and NYA. Even though the programs served limited numbers, they would
serve as a model for national service programs used in later eras such as the Peace
Corps, Ameri Corps, and Vista. They would leave a lasting change in the American
landscape and the American people (Hiltzik, 2011).
A survey of the major education bills and legislation of the time period also
uncovered another apparent tendency in federal education policymaking: that
general aid bills inevitably failed to become law. This finding is particularly important
when considering the political feasibility of national education standards in the future.
CHAPTER FIVE
1963 – 1968
JOHNSON ERA OF EDUCATION POLICY
Chapter four reviewed the education policy and politics of President Franklin
D. Roosevelt during his years in office. Three beliefs of the President and American
citizens were revealed: first, the American way of thinking about politics and
government held that citizens should be sufficiently educated to play a thoughtful
role in public affairs; second, presidents and Congress crafted little policy to see that
citizens are sufficiently educated; and third, federal education politics and policy
making had been minimal and any suggestion of an increased role had been
generally feared and fought.
Chapter five continues the study that is focusing on the development of
education policy through three eras of time. The primary focus of the research was
the executive branch of the federal government. The actors and actions were
studied in relation to the development and implementation of education policies on
the federal level. At the policymaking end of the continuum, from 1963 to 1968, was
the President of the United States, Lynden Baines Johnson. It is not the intention of
the researcher to imply that any of the actors were more or less important to
education policy development; however, the historical background is important to
understanding the context in which the education policies are developed.
In this chapter, the story of Lynden Baines Johnson and other important actors
of his era are told. In chapter IV, the story of Franklin D. Roosevelt was told, and in
chapter VI, the story of George W. Bush will be told. Interpretations, comparisons,
and conclusions will be presented in Chapter VII.
This chapter is organized into five sections. Each section follows the
Organized Anarchy Model of Public Policymaking and Implementation (See Table
4.1). The first section discusses the agenda and a brief history behind the agenda of
Lynden Baines Johnson during the years of 1963-1968. The second section
contains the agenda setting process. This section describes the narrowing of a set
of conceivable subjects to the set that actually becomes the focus of attention. The
third section follows the three streams of policymaking: the problem stream, the
political stream, and the policy steam (Kingdon, 2003). This section will describe the
actors, activities, and policies developed within the three streams during the five
years President Johnson was in office. Within the fourth section, the coupling of
streams is discussed. Finally, section five will describe the acceptance/adoption
phase of the Organized Anarchy Model.
This chapter is not intended to be a summary of the history of education.
Rather, it presents the context, actors, and their actions in relation to one aspect of
education policy, the expansion of federal control over education. Figure 4.2
illustrates the portion of the Policy-into-Practice Continuum discussed in this chapter.
Figure 4.3 is an organizational chart of the policymakers who were involved in
making policies during this era of time.
Agenda
The term the agenda can take on several meanings for example the agenda
for a meeting. For this paper agenda will be interpreted as “subjects or problems to
which government officials, and people outside of government closely associated
with those officials are paying attention to at any given time” (Kingdon J. W.,
Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2003, p. 3)
The 1960’s resound in the memories of many Americans as do few other eras
of time. It was a time when events went into overdrive and the postwar social
trajectory was deflected off line. Life blueprints were rejected: people struck out on
new courses. They resounded with harsh voices that were demanding, raging,
denouncing, promising, accusing, and cajoling (Unger & Unger, 1998). Five events
defined and changed the political climate for the United States during the 1960’s.
They were the baby boom (1946-1961), the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War,
the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and the advent of the Great Society.
Each of these events cast long shadows over politics and politicians alike for years
to come; however, the source of these shadows began years before. By the end of
the 1940’s, rural areas, the South, and some declining northern industrial cities were
dealing with intense poverty issues with no immediate relief in sight.
During the 1950’s, vast social changes had begun to transform American life.
Concerns about racial integration, federal authority, and the contrasting fate of city
and suburb took center stage in public policy. The affluence of the Fifties and early
years of the Sixties made possible the 1960’s as we know it today. Only the wealth
generated by a surging economy could have sustained the politics, the lifestyles, the
tastes, and the opinions of Americans in the 60’s (Unger & Unger, 1998).
The baby boom. Young men and women returning home following tours of
duty overseas during World War II began to start families. Between 1946 and 1964,
the stork delivered approximately seventy-six million babies in America (Caplow,
Hicks, & Wattenberg, 2001). The boom in population created the largest contingent
of young Americans in our history (Unger & Unger, 1998). In 1964, boomers
represented about 40% of the population. In other words, in 1964, more than
onethird of the population was under 19 years old. Their sheer numbers gave the
sixties baby boomers cohort significance, and it was difficult to ignore the views and
desires of such a large group of the nation’s active population (Rosenberg, 2009).
The assassination of John F. Kennedy. The assassination of President
John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, shocked the nation. Most Americans living
at that time can remember where they were and what they were doing when they
heard the news of President Kennedy’s death. Simultaneously, the nation grieved
and witnessed firsthand the strength and stability of its constitutional system in the
immediate transfer of the office of the Presidency to Lyndon B. Johnson
(Carney & Way Jr., 1994). In speaking to Congress five days after the assassination,
President Johnson made it clear that he would pursue the slain President’s
legislative agenda. Johnson stated that, “No memorial oration or eulogy could more
eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible passage of
the civil rights bill for which he fought so long” (Goodwin Kearns, 1976, p. 174).
Kennedy had proposed a law that would have outlawed discrimination in public
accommodations, but it never got to the floor of either the House or Senate during
his time in office.
Civil Rights Movement. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which banned discrimination on the basis of race in all federally funded
programs, including schools (Mondale & Patton, 2001, p. 46). The writers of the Civil
Rights Act wanted to ensure implementation of the act. By following the guidelines of
the carrot and stick metaphor, they crafted a strategy to be use to get the results
they wanted. The Civil Rights Act said, among other things, that states and school
districts could lose their federal funding if they refused to desegregate their schools.
The Civil Rights Act and the threat of losing federal funds was the stick. The carrot
was the significant increase in federal funds that came in the form of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) (Mondale & Patton, 2001, p. 147).
The Vietnam War. The commitments made by President Eisenhower and
President Kennedy to assist South Vietnam defend itself against the efforts of the
Communist North were the actual beginnings of America’s involvement in Vietnam;
however, it was President Johnson who changed the course of the war by sending
American forces to fight. The original mission had been to only advise the South
Vietnamese, but when the war was being lost, the only hope of turning the tide, said
his secretary of defense, secretary of state, national security advisor, and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, was to commit combat troops to the cause. Secretary of State Dean
Rusk stated that, “The integrity of the U.S. commitment is the principal pillar of peace
throughout the world and if that commitment becomes unreliable, the communist
world would draw conclusions that would lead to our ruin and almost certainly to a
catastrophic war” (Zeiler, 2000, p. 125; Middleton, 2008, para. 32).
When looking back on his original decision to back the war, Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamera stated, “I cannot overstate the impact our generation’s
experiences had on all of us. We had lived through the years of war that resulted
from the western powers not stopping the advance of Hitler when there still was
time” (Middleton, 2008, para. 33).
The Great Society. In the spring of 1964, only four months after he became
president, Lyndon Johnson spoke at the University of Michigan (Grinspan, 1995).
Using carefully chosen words he sketched the outline for a program intended to go
beyond the Kennedy legacy. President Johnson outlined his Great Society agenda
and in particular, his War on Poverty programs. The climate that made it possible for
a President to adopt such large ambitions and to succeed in enacting so many of his
proposals was the product of converging circumstances. “The shock of Kennedy’s
death, the Civil Rights Movement, an emerging awareness of the extent and
existence of poverty, and a reduction of threatening tensions between the United
States and the Soviet Union, along with the rising tendency to use education to right
societal problems all helped Americans to focus public attention and perceptions on
the problems of their own country” (Goodwin Kearns, 1976, p. 33). President
Johnson’s Great Society was to include something for everyone: educational
assistance for youth, civil rights for the oppressed, vocational training for unskilled,
high minimum wage for the laborer, subsidies for farmers, tax relief for business,
Medicare for the elderly, reduced quotas for the immigrants, and more (Goodwin
Kearns, 1976).
Early in his presidency, it became clear that education would be the focal point
of President Johnson’s War on Poverty. Johnson’s rhetoric revealed his
understanding of the issues facing education and educators alike. As a former
teacher in rural Texas, he had witnessed poverty’s impact on the students he taught.
In 1931, President Johnson had taught at a public school that served the
impoverished children of Mexican American laborers (Mondale & Patton, 2001).
Johnson believed that an equal chance at education meant an equal chance at life
and was vital to a child’s ability to lead a productive life. While in office, he created a
wide-ranging series of federal programs, from Head Start to low-cost college loans,
to help disadvantaged students.
The impressive growth of the school system during the 1940’s and 1950’s did
not lead to a uniformly satisfied public. Many citizens understandably took pride in
the sheer expansion of school enrollments, curricular offerings and social services,
but criticism abounded. A few critics realized that the schools reflected society, not
the other way around, and doubted their ability to ameliorate difficult economic,
racial, and social problems they had not created (Reese, 2005). In a speech given
to Congress in 1961, President Kennedy stated, “Our progress as a nation can be no
swifter than our progress in education. Our requirements for world leadership, our
hopes for economic growth, and the demands of citizenship itself in an era such as
this all require the maximum development of every young American’s capacity” (87th
Congress, 1st session, Special Message of the President to the Congress on
Education, February 20, 1961). Until then, American education had been a highly
diffused enterprise. The role of the federal government, in particular, had been
minimal and any suggested increase in that role had been generally feared and
fought (Bailey & Mosher, 1968). Race, religion, and fear of federal control were the
stumbling blocks that had combined to defeat large-scale federal aid to elementary
and secondary education (Brademas, 1987). Before President Johnson came into
office, the federal government’s share of educational spending amounted to about
1%, mostly earmarked for vocational programs (Reese, 2005). Presidential support
was, at times, nominally present, but it had never been sufficiently intensive or
effective until President Johnson made education the top priority of his Great Society
(Brademas, 1987). Even as late as 1964, likelihood of prospects for large-scale
school federal aid for general education was next to impossible (Bediner, 1964).
Robert Bediner described it appropriately by saying:
From all that has gone before, it can be said that the spontaneous
arrangement of circumstances is possible—but only in the same way that it is
possible for pigments thrown at a canvas to shape themselves into The Last
Supper. That is, it may happen, but it is not a good bet, and to have to count
on it for the success of legislation approaches the preposterous. (1964)
On April 9, 1965, Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary School
Act (ESEA) (P.L.89-10), the most expansive federal education bill ever passed as
part of the President Johnson’s War on Poverty. The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 was a turning point in the history of federal Policy. At the time,
it was the largest federal aid to education program ever passed by Congress,
changing the role of the federal government in education (Kosar, 2003).
Agenda Setting Process
The agenda setting Process “narrows the conceivable subjects to the set that
actually becomes the focus of attention allowing participants to see and understand
why the agenda is composed and select a particular course of action” (Kingdon,
2003, p. 3). This process is the first step in the policy process. Before an issue can
be acted upon, it must become a recognized part of the policy agenda (Simon,
Public policy: Preference and outcomes, 2010). According to Cobb and Elder
(1972), agenda setting may involve the transfer of items from non-governmental
systemic agenda to a governmental formal agenda. This suggests that decisions
about national interest are the result of a political process in which a country’s
leaders ultimately arrive at a decision about the importance of a given internal event
or crisis in relation to the country’s well-being, in other words, basic national interests
(Nuechterlein, 1978). The way that the government deals with internal issues is
referred to as public interest or domestic policy. Basic public interests can be
described as defense interests, economic interests, world order interests, and
ideological interests (Nuechterlein, 1978). Education policy falls under all four
categories of interests, making the role of education in the agenda setting process a
reactive process.
Reactive process to education. The garbage can theory argues that,
desirable or not, the agenda setting process is reactive (Kingdon, 2003). By the
1950’s, vast social changes had begun to transform American life, forming the
backdrop to rising educational demands, and thereby causing the need for a reaction
from the federal government. Between 1946 and 1964, the stork delivered seventy-
six million babies in America (Caplow, Hicks, & Wattenberg, 2001). The baby boom
caused an educational crisis - not enough elementary schools, not enough qualified
teachers, and low standards - was constantly in the news, locally and nationally
(Reese, 2005). Most Americans agreed with the media that public schools were in
crisis, beset by overcrowded classrooms, underpaid teachers, bad teaching, and a
soaring dropout rate (Unger & Unger, 1998).
The post-war phenomenon of rising expectations and demand for educational
improvement came from two broad sources: the white middle class and the
champions of the civil rights movement. Both were responding to dramatic
economic and political changes that were altering American society. By the 1950’s,
many people believed that the schools’ role in the economy had increased, and their
beliefs would only continue to escalate (Reese, 2005). White middle-class citizens
were becoming more ensconced in relatively affluent suburbs. Going to college was
now the indisputable road to the expanding world of white-collar work. The middle
class feared that public schools had lowered their standards, thereby hurting their
child’s chance at an affluent professional future. At the same time schools,
especially secondary, were getting lower and lower grades from the public. No
governmental agency, especially local school boards, could ignore the anxieties or
demands of predominately white parents of future collegians, given the power over
the public purse and the importance of public opinion (Reese, 2005). Representing
other social and racial interests, the civil rights movement also contributed to the
phenomenon of rising expectations and the need for more effective schools. These
activists worried less about academically weak secondary schools or about who
went to college, but were more concerned about whether schools could fulfill their
democratic promise and include those who historically had been excluded from the
system (Reese, 2005). The great challenge in postwar America was how to satisfy
the middle and lower classes by simultaneously addressing the education problems
of equality and quality (The inequality Within the Agenda Setting Process Pg. 84).
This forced politicians to react to the issues and create new policies.
Categories affecting policy formation. “The agenda setting process raises
two questions. First, why do changes occur in the agenda setting process? The
second is why some issues are more prominent than others. The answer to these
questions lies within two categories. The “two categories of factors to have an effect
on the agenda setting process: the participants/actors who are active in setting the
agenda and the processes by which agenda items and alternatives come into
prominence” (Kingdon, 2003, p. 15).
Participants/actors in the agenda setting process. In general, the principal
actors in policy formation are the legitimate, or formal, policy makers: people who
occupy positions in the governmental arena that entitle them to authoritatively assign
priorities and commit resources (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). Effective action
within each stakeholder’s role requires knowledge, understanding, and awareness of
the policy environment. Policies create an environment of exchange relationships
between the players and the actors (Meltsner & Bellavita, 1983). At a minimum, the
actors in the executive branch, including the President of the United States,
Congress, and bureaucrats, are expected to set the general boundaries in which the
creation and implementation of a policy will occur (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).
Various forces outside of the government, including the media, interest groups,
political parties and the general public, also have a stake in policy-making process.
The President of the United States. The president’s role in the policy-making
process is complicated. First, the President’s agenda is often national in scope,
whereas legislators are interested in local benefit (Simon, Public policy: Preference
and outcomes, 2010). Special circumstances, in this case the assassination of
President Kennedy, produced a blend of interested needs, convictions and alliances
powerful enough to go beyond the normal pattern of slow, incremental change, but
only a few could transform the opportunity these circumstances provided into
achievement. President Johnson’s presence in all areas of government had not
been seen since Roosevelt was in office. The accurate perception of Johnson was
that he was a gargantuan manipulator and tireless practitioner of political skills
(Goodwin Kearns, 1976). Johnson attained power by being an apprentice to those
who had power and he learned how to use his power effectively (Caro, 1982; Caro,
2002; Goodwin, 19976).
Lyndon Baines Johnson was a son of the Texas hill country (Unger & Unger,
1999, p. 1). Acknowledging his origins, Johnson once referred to himself as a cross
between Baptist preacher and a cowboy (Dugger, 1982). Although Lyndon Johnson
lived in Washington more than half of his adult life, he was deeply attached to his
place of birth (Sidey, 1968). In almost every action that Johnson took as President,
there was a strand which could be clearly followed back to his home in Texas (Unger
& Unger, 1999, p. 2).
Once he took office as the President of the United States, he considered
himself a leader of all people (Goodwin, 1976; Johnson, 1971). He wanted action
and set his priorities on civil rights and education, which promoted complex and
mixed feelings among the public (Goodwin, 1976; Unger & Unger 1999), but which
covered the four basic national interest categories: defense, economic, world order,
and ideological interests.
Congress. Congress plays a significant role in education policy, particularly
through its lawmaking and budget functions (Simon, 2010). Legislatures also tend to
be interested in the ideological maintenance. Congressmen themselves hold their
own attitudes on questions of public policy, and that these attitudes affect their votes
(Kingdon, 2003). According to Rein and Rabovitz (1978), the political and ideological
landscape had been changing since at least the 1958 congressional elections
(Carmines & Stimson, 1989). The conservative members of Congress who opposed
federal aid to schools were losing their power to veto these proposals. Federal aid
advocates engineered this switch by placating the same groups of potential
opponents, or swing voters, that hard line opponents had manipulated during past
episodes. Between 1946 and 1965, education bills were introduced to Congress by
three different Presidents. Few received consideration in Congress, but with the
introduction of each new education bill the door was opened a little wider for federal
aid for education. The liberal position was strengthened by gains in the 1964
election, which added more legislators to Congress who favored federal involvement
in education.
During the 1964 campaign, Lyndon B. Johnson vigorously campaigned for
education, and consistently tied the improvement of education to the goal of creating
a Great Society (Jeffrey, 1978). He saw his opportunity with the new 89th Congress,
which had more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans in both Chambers.
The Democrats had their largest margins (295 to 140, and 68 to 32) since 1937 (see
Table 5.1) (Congressional Quarterly, 1965). The bureaucrats during the Roosevelt
administration tended to follow the rational bureaucratic imperative approach to their
jobs: when advancing ideas for policy, they tended to follow a course of action they
felt was morally correct, administratively feasible and intellectually defensible course
of action (Simon, 2010). Fear of federal control continued to impact decisions;
however, by 1964, Congress had been liberalized. Congressional fear of federal
control was assuaged by the 1964 Presidential election of Johnson and the resulting
democratic majorities that were swept into the House and Senate as a coattail effect
of his landslide victory (Cater, D., 1969). According to U.S. Senator James Guthrie
from Kentucky,
President Johnson’s overwhelming 1964 election victory provided him with an
awesome reservoir from which to infer popular support for his legislative
proposals. As a result, the President was also able to invoke remarkable
cohesion and support among democrats especially non-southern Democrats
for ESEA 1965 (Cater, D., 1969).
In 1961, the House Education and Labor Committee had nineteen democrats
and twelve republicans; in 1965 it had twenty-one democrats and ten republicans.
The twenty-one democrats included the five just-elected democrats who had
campaigned for increased federal aid to education: William Ford (MI), Patsy T. Mink
(HI), William Hathaway (ME), James Scheuer (NY), and Lloyd Meeds (WA).
(Eidenberg & Morey, 1969).
The Rules Committee saw no partisan shift; however, early in the session,
Congress, egged on by the new, more liberal democrats adopted a rule that
empowered the Speaker to bypass the Rules Committee on bills reported out of
legislative committee for three weeks or more (Bailey & Mosher, 1968). President
Johnson, ever the politician, saw his chance. Speaking to his top advisors, he said,
Look, we’ve got to do this in a hurry. We got in with this majority of 16 million
votes in the Congress. It doesn’t make any difference what we do. We’re
going to lose them at a rate of a million a month, and under those
circumstances, get your hearings going. [Commissioner of Education
Francis] Keppel, when are you starting yours? (Graham, 1984).
President Johnson’s bill was introduced to both houses of Congress on January 12,
1965. Johnson himself delivered an education message to Congress that same day.
He justified the bill using moral reasoning and national interest, saying,
While American education had its merits it also possessed a darker side.
Beyond the soaring enrollments that are swelling the public schools, one
student out of every three now in the fifth grade will drop out before finishing
high school-if the present rate continues. Almost a million young people with
and eighth grade education or less is four times the national average”
(Lyndon B. Johnson, “Message to Congress, January 12, 1965).
He added,
Every child must be encouraged to get as much education as he has the
ability to take. We want this not only for his sake, but for the nation’s sake.
Nothing matters more to the future of our country: not our military
preparedness—for armed might is worthless if we lack the brain power to
build a world of peace; not our productive economy – for we cannot sustain
growth without rained manpower, not our democratic system of
governmentfor freedom if citizens are ignorant. (Lyndon B. Johnson,
“Message to
Congress, January 12, 1965)
Congress responded favorably. The House held ten hearing sessions on the bill in
twelve days, even meeting in the evening and on Saturday (Bailey & Mosher, 1968).
Subcommittees and committees in both houses sought to pass the bill without
amendment to avoid the peril of a conference committee (Jeffrey, 1970).
Organized Interest groups
The military. In addition to the poor conditions of the public schools, the public
became aware that the armed services had rejected more than a quarter of all
draftees in 1964 because they were unable to read or write at an eighth-grade level
(Zeiler, 2000).
Citizens. By the 1950’s, dramatic economic and political changes had altered
American society and were the impetus for a demand for educational improvement,
particularly from both the white, middle class and champions of the civil rights
movement. Many people believed education played an important role in the
economy and would continue becoming increasingly important as going to college
was now the indisputable road to the expanding world of white-collar work. Schools,
especially secondary, were getting lower and lower grades from the public, and the
middle class feared that public schools had lowered their standards, thereby hurting
their child’s chance at an affluent professional future. No governmental agency,
especially local school boards could ignore the anxieties or demands of largely white
parents of future collegians, given the power over the public purse and importance to
public opinion (Reese, 2005). The civil rights activists believed that schools must
fulfill their democratic promise and include those who historically had been excluded
from the system (Reese, 2005).
Processes. A policy is a course of action that could become a law, a
regulation, a project, or other public decision. Knowledge of the impacts of a policy
can lead policymakers to take or change a position on a policy, or to work to amend
the policy. Thus understanding the effects intended and unintended consequences
of a proposed policy can affect what the policy will be whether the policy is adopted,
and how effective it will be (Loomis, 2001).
When President Johnson first began talking about the Great Society in 1964,
he was trying to distinguish his own administration from that of his predecessor
(Grinspan, 1995, p. 7). The intended consequence of the Great Society was to
declare war on poverty. “Before I am through,” Johnson stated, “no community in
America will be able to ever again to ignore poverty in its midst” (Middleton, 2008,
para. 8). The unintended consequence was the creation of more laws and
regulations governing education services.
Diffusion of ideas. In The Diffusion of Innovations among the American
States, Jack Walker (1969) states that issues may reach the agenda through
diffusion of ideas in professional circles and among policy elites, particularly
bureaucrats. In 1964 and 1965, legislative policy formulations for education began
in the executive office of the President (Cronin, February 1969; Thomas, 1975).
Broadly speaking, President Johnson used the resources of his White House staff;
the Bureau of the Budget; an ad hoc legislative task force; and the resources of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare/Office of Education to establish
priorities and set policy agenda for the Elementary and Secondary School Act
(Cannon, 1991; Cater, C., 1991).
The education policy President Johnson wanted to push forward had familiar
political problems facing it. Johnson and his advisers knew that there would be no
federal aid to education bill if the issues of granting aid to segregated school
systems, fear of government control of the schools, and the issue of church and
state were not taken into account. The key, the task force realized, was to focus on
the child and not the institution (Woods, 2006). The Elementary and Secondary
School Act originally had three options. The first was to provide general aid to public
schools, but it was argued that this could generate a negative reaction from Catholic
schools. The second was to provide general aid to both public and private schools,
but this, besides constitutional obstacles, would create a negative reaction from the
National Education Association (NEA) and large sectors of the Democratic Party who
objected to federal aid to religious schools. The third option was to withdraw the
idea of general aid and focus on providing educational aid to poor children.
It is perceived by the general public that policy makers are motivated by
political ideology and the needs of the people when developing new policies. If this
perception is distorted, as was the case at the onset of the sixties, a disconnect
between the policy-making actors and the clients will occur. To change the attitudes
of the clients toward a new policy requires a powerful propaganda campaign (Levin,
2008). President Johnson, like President Roosevelt, was a master communicator
and his legacy was an avalanche of legislation. During an interview in 1968
President Johnson stated,
The trick was to crack the wall of separation enough to give the Congress a
feeling of participation in creating my bills while exposing my plans at the
same time to advance congressional opposition before they even saw the
light of day. My experience in the National Youth Administration, NYA, taught
me that when people have a hand in shaping projects, the projects are more
likely to be successful than the ones simply handed down from the top. As
Majority Leader in the Senate I learned that the best guarantee to legislature
success was a process by which the wishes and views of the members are
obtained ahead of time and whenever possible, incorporated into the early
drafts of the bill (Goodwin Kearns, 1976, p. 222).
Conflicts of interest. The bill did face criticism. Representatives from
Baptist, Lutheran, and liberal Jewish groups complained that the bill improperly
mingled church and state. Organizations advocating strict separation between
church and state, such as the ACLU and the National Association for Personal
Rights in Education, testified similarly (Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report,
week ending February 5, 1965, p. 174). A few witnesses and congressmen
complained that the bill was a federal power grab (Bailey & Mosher, 1968). The only
major controversy the bill encountered in Congress involved the formula for
providing Title I aid. (Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1965. Vol. 21, p. 275;
Graham, 1984).
Processes (Streams)
The more that case studies and the place of various actors in processes of
policy formation are examined, the more one concludes that attempting to pinpoint a
single origin is futile. Instead, a complex combination of factors is generally
responsible for the movement of a given item into agenda prominence (Kingdon,
2003); therefore, basic to the model of organized anarchy is the presence of three
streams of processes that “tease out the messiness, disjointedness, humanity, and
luck of policymaking” (Henry, 2007, pp. 288). The streams are referred to as the
problem stream, the political stream, and the policy stream. (See Table 4.6) These
streams flow independently of one another until they converge to create a window of
opportunity for the restructuring of either a governmental agenda or a decision
agenda.
The problem stream. The problem stream involves focusing the public’s and
policymaker’s attention on a particular social problem, defining the problem, and
either applying a new public policy as a resolution of the problem or letting the
problem fade from sight. (See Table 4.7) Many times problems come to the attention
of governmental decision makers not through some sort of political pressure or
perceptual sleight of hand, but because some more or less systematic indicator
simply brings attention to the problem (Kingdon, 2003).
Getting attention. “Often problems come to the attention of governmental
decision makers because an indicator shows that this is a problem because of
routine monitoring of various activities over time” (Kingdon, 2003, p. 90). An
examination of educational thought in the late forties and fifties shows that despite
continuing criticism of the American school system during these years, traditional
expectations about the responsibilities and capabilities of education expanded. By
the early 1960’s, liberals, politicians, and educators all agreed that education could
deal with newly recognized social problems as competently as they had dealt with
other problems growing out of the early cold war (Jeffrey, 1970).
President Truman gave the first hints of the problems in the new role of
American Education in June of1948 by declaring that “if American people lacked
adequate opportunities for education, they might well prove responsive to
communism” (Truman, Public papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S.
Truman, 1948). With the outbreak of the Korean conflict in 1950, Truman linked
education with the nation’s technological strength (Public Papers of the Presidents of
the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1951). Truman stated, from the standpoint of
national security alone, as well as “the enlargement of opportunities for the
individual, the Nation needs to see that every youth acquires fundamental education
and training which are essential to effective service, whether in the Armed Forces, in
industry, or on the farm” (Truman, Public paper of the Presidents of the United
States: Harry S. Truman, 1951, p. 95).
With the launching of Sputnick in October 1957, Americans were provided
dramatic proof for those who argued that the Russian schools, which combined
quality education with mass education and which successfully inspired student to
work to full potential, were more effective than American schools (Duncan, 2002). It
was stated during the Science and Education in National Defense hearings held
during January 1958, that America faced the stark reality that our national survival
depended on the success or failure of our educational institutions to provide the
intellectual, the scientific, the diplomatic leaders sorely to solve complex problems at
home and with our neighbors abroad (Hearings Before Committee on Labor and
Public Relations).
By the 1960’s, most Americans also agreed that the public schools were in
crisis, beset by overcrowded classrooms, underpaid teachers, bad teaching, and a
soaring dropout rate (Unger & Unger, 1999). In addition, the public became aware
that the armed services had rejected more than a quarter of all draftees in 1964
because they were unable to read or write at an eighth-grade level.
Indicators. The post-war years in the United States were marked by a series
of demands upon the educational system that were unprecedented in scope and
magnitude. Any one of the new demands would have produced disquiet and
concern. Together, they constituted an explosive admixture (Bailey & Mosher, 1968).
Baby boomers. Following the end of World War II, young men and women
returned home and began families. Between 1946 and 1964, the stork delivered
approximately seventy-six million babies in America (Caplow, Hicks, & Wattenberg,
2001). This boom in population created the largest contingent of young Americans in
our history (Unger & Unger, 1999). In 1964, boomers represented about 40% of the
population; more than a third of the population was under 19 years old. Their sheer
numbers gave the sixties baby boomers cohort significance
The knowledge explosion.
As Americans and American education were experiencing growth in the public
school system a postwar intellectual and technological explosion also occurred.
Breakthroughs in electronic communications increased the speed and ease of
publishing and disseminating information to the people. Heightened mobility made
possible through new modes of transportation allowed for the sharing of ideas
throughout society. This movement allowed for the outpouring of research findings
in social and behavioral sciences at home and abroad (Bailey S. , 1966) creating
expectations for a better quality education for students.
Segregation.
A major catalyst to educational ferment of the 1950’s and early 1960’s, and
provided a source new demands on the educational system was the Supreme Court
Case Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas. In this historic decision, the
Supreme Court overturning the Plessey v. Ferguson (1896) ruling that separate but
equal was permissible. The 1954 Supreme Court ruling held that “in the field of
education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational
facilities are inherently unequal (Brown v. Board of Topeka, Kansas, 1954).
Poverty and cultural deprivation. During the 1940’s, rural areas, the south,
and some declining northern industrial cities had the poorest schools with no
immediate relief in sight. There was a wide division between suburban and city
schools and a chasm separating African-American and white schools, especially in
the Jim Crow South.
Parochial schools.
Leading up to World War II issues of private schooling were essentially non-
existent. The post-war inflation, population growth, and shortages of teachers
placed financial pressures on private education that had not been experienced
previously (Bailey S. , 1966). “The schools sought assistance from public sources,
especially for transportation and health services. The private school sector justified
these services because they “benefitted the child not the school” (Bailey S. K., 1966,
p. 10). The Supreme Court upheld the Everson v. Board of Education of 1947.
Creating the lead in that would be needed for ESEA of 1965.
Feedback.
Feedback comes to officials in the form of rather systematic monitoring.
Complaints and casework lead to awareness of problems. Usually failure to meet
stated goals. “The education debates of the 1940’s and 1950’s had created the
framework that made it natural to turn to education for solutions as new social
problems surfaced” (Jeffrey, 1970). Concern over public educations failure to meet
the challenges of poor children was voiced by educators and civil rights leaders
simultaneously. Both of these groups hoped that the urban school system could be
the remedy to the problem. In the NEA 1962 publication Education and the
Disadvantaged American the goal of education was to be “practicable and American”
(Education Policies Commission, 1962, p. 9). The publication continued to state that
“education was to provide all people with a fair chance to meet the challenges of life”
(Education Policies Commission, 1962, p. 11). However, the commission did point
out that “no institution could ensure equal opportunity but the school can have a
profound influence in this direction” (Education Policies
Commission, 1962, p. 37). It was felt if schools were to succeed in raising the
academic levels of poor students to that of middle class students then the regular
learning procedures used for the advantaged students should be used for all
students. (Bloom, Davis, & and Hess, p. 1962).
Many leaders of the community, media, and education began to look at
compensatory education for the poor. They felt that it was not going to be
expensive. It did not disrupt social arrangements. In fact, few visualized that it
would change the structure or climate of the school. “Compensatory educators
claimed to offer a way to meet urban problems by overcoming the effects of the
culture of poverty” (Jeffrey, 1970, p. 20) social generosity seemed the way to go. It
entailed “a little distribution from rich to poor, a seamlessly painless act” (Unger &
Unger, 1998, p. 13).
Budget prioritization. Beginning with Andrew Jackson, every American
President that tried to use federal money for public schools had been unsuccessful
for one of three reasons: racial segregation, local control of neighborhood schools,
and the separation of church and state (Unger & Unger, 1999). As an example, the
Kennedy administration had submitted a federal aid to education bill to Congress
that provided funding to public but not private schools under a formula weighted to
give disproportionate help to systems in the poorest states and in inner-city ghettos
(Stein, 2004, p. 27). As a Catholic, Kennedy felt that he could not afford to champion
aid to private institutions. In response, James Delaney, a Catholic congressman
from New York, rallied parochial school supporters in the House and managed to
block its passage (Woods, 2006).
President Johnson made federal aid to for education a fundamental issue in
his 1964 campaign (Johnson, 1971). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) was introduced into Congress in January 1965, and had a variety of goals
ranging from revitalizing the country’s educational system to providing textbooks for
parochial school children, but the grandest and most explicit objective of the
legislation was to bring education into the front ranks of the nationwide assault on
poverty (Jeffrey, 1970). As Johnson carefully explained, there was good reason to
give education a crucial role in the war on poverty. He often said,
A lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptom. The
cause may lie deeper - in our failure to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to
develop their own capacities in a lack of education and training. With
education instead of being condemned to poverty and idleness, young
Americans can learn the skills to find a job and provide for a family (Jeffrey,
1970, p. 114).
ESEA was based on a rather simple formula. The federal government would
provide each state funds in the amount of the number of children in the state from
low-income families (less than $2,000 per year), multiplied by 50 percent of the
state’s average expenditure per pupil (Woods, 2006). Title I provided funds to public
institutions to help the children of low-income families, but services in these
institutions would be available to public and parochial schools alike (Woods, 2003).
In turning to the schools to help solve the problem of mid-twentieth century
poverty, President Johnson and administration planners testified to a traditional and
tenacious belief in the powers of education. Americans expected the public schools
to cure a variety of social ills without revolutionizing existing political and economic
arrangements (Perkinson, 2007). The assortment of new demands fell upon an
education system woefully shy of institutional, human, and fiscal resources (Bailey ,
1966, p. 10). Johnson envisioned a doubling of federal spending on education, from
$4 billion to $8 billion, with $1 billion going to elementary and secondary students
(Woods, 2003; Anderson, 2000).
Problem definition.
Wildavsky says, “A difficulty is a problem only if something can be done about
it” (Wildavasky, 1979, p. 42) in this case “an issue will be considered a problem
when people what to change the condition” (Kingdon, 2003, p. 109). The problem
will be defined by the use of values and comparisons.
Values. The historical roots of these values are deeply embedded in the
cultural streams that comprise the common heritage of the United States. These
values permeate the ideologies promulgated by political parties, religions, schools,
and other social institutions (Kingdon, 2003). American culture contains three
strongly held values that significantly influence public policy in general and education
policy specifically. They are equality, efficiency, and liberty.
Equality. The basic freedoms - the world that Franklin Roosevelt envisioned
and that John Kennedy worked and died for - took on new meaning in Johnson’s
time (Johnson, 1964, p. 15). Johnson elaborated on this belief when he said, “One
hundred years ago, Lincoln told us that this Nation could not stand half-slave and
half-free. For my part, I believe this society cannot succeed part committed and part
uncommitted, part concerned and part unconcerned, part compassionate and part
callous” (Johnson, 1964, p. 8).
Efficiency. Increasing technical complexity of 19th century industrialization
necessitated a more highly-educated workforce than the agriculture or industrial
societies needed. In fact, 1956 and 1957 were considered the peek years for the
industrial society when economic value was increased by human labor (Naisbitt,
1984). This condition provoked widespread provision of public schooling, and, in
subsequent periods, schooling has been understood as an important contributor to
economic efficiency. The beginnings of the informational age overlapped with the
industrial age. “In 1956, for the first time in American history, white-collar workers in
technical, managerial, and clerical positions outnumbered blue-collar workers.”
(Naisbitt, 1982) Without realizing what was happening the industrial age was giving
way to the information age. Americans worked with information rather than their
hands. The labor theory of value needed to be replaced with a new knowledge
theory of value (Naisbitt, 1984). Edward Denison stated that “two-thirds of the
economic growth came about because of the increased size and education of the
workforce and the greater pool of knowledge available to workers” (Naisbitt, 1984).
Liberty. For Americans, liberty is the freedom to choose, to be able to select
from among different courses of action, and it is this desire for choice that has fueled
the American affection for a market economy. Competition among producers is held
to expand the range of items from which consumers can choose. On the other hand,
Americans have long expected the public schools to cure a variety of social ills
without revolutionizing existing political and economic arrangements (Perkinson,
2007). In turning to the schools to help solve the problem of mid-twentieth-century
poverty, Johnson and his administration testified to their belief in the powers of
education.
Comparisons. Problems sometimes arise out of comparisons. If one is not
achieving what others are achieving, and if one believes in equality, then the relative
disadvantage constitutes a problem (Kingdon, 2003). Following the policies of
Roosevelt’s NYA programs the war on poverty was not aimed at all segments of the
population.
President Johnson was influenced by President Franklin Roosevelt, whose
New Deal program transformed and greatly expanded the federal government’s role
in poverty reduction. Unlike the New Deal, which occurred during the deepest
economic depression Americans had ever experienced, Johnson’s Great Society
program of reform took place at a time when the country was affluent and when
unemployment was low (Sreenivasan, 2009). Johnson’s Great Society was also
similar to Roosevelt’s New Deal program in that many Republicans and state’s rights
advocates continued to argue that because the Constitution did delineate education
as a federal responsibility, it remained the legal responsibility of the states (Spring,
1990). Those opposed feared federal intrusion into school practices.
The process of fixing attention on one problem rather than others is central to
the agenda process and “sometimes the recognition of a pressing problem is
sufficient to gain a subject a prominent place on the policy agenda” (Kingdon, 2003,
p. 114). In other words the events, trends, and actions of the 1960’s brought to the
forefront the problems that existed and needed to be dealt with.
Political stream. The definition for political used in the political stream is
defined as, the political motivations and efforts needed to obtain support of leaders
by interest groups who may be of importance. Within the political stream, a
governmental agenda is formulated by fixing the attention of the policy makers on
one problem rather than others. (See Table 4.8) This process is central to the
political stream. “Sometimes the recognition of a pressing problem is sufficient to
gain a subjects prominent place on the policy agenda ladder” (Kingdon, 2003, p.
114). In other words events, trends, and actions bring to the forefront the problem
that everyone knew exited but had not put the pieces together to bring about action.
Seven years after passage of the National Defense Education Act of 1958,
Congress enacted an even larger school-aid package. The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) was a key episode in the long decline of
opposition to federal contribution to elementary and secondary schooling. The
political compromises that led to its passage helped align various factions behind the
bill and thereby override the diminished cadre of unconverted conservative
opponents to expanded federal assistance to schools.
Major forces affecting the political stream.
Public policy could treat political motivations and the efforts needed to obtain
support as something outside of the policy making process. The political stream is
an important promoter or inhibitor of high agenda status. All of the elite actors in the
system, most especially the President judge whether the balance of forces in the
political stream favors action. They also judge whether the general public would
tolerate the direction being pursued in advancing a policy. Without knowing why
there are shifts in attitudes and motivations the policy makers would be missing one
very important piece to the policy making process which could be costly at the polls
later. During the 1960’s the national mood, organized interest groups, and changes
in government had a tremendous impact on the policy making process both by
promoting items that fit with the mood of the times and by inhibiting attention to the
items that did not.
National mood. As minorities became more sophisticated in politics and
political thinking, their reception of message, resistance to, and accessibility to
political ideas began to influence the national mood (Stimson, Madkuen, & Erikson,
2002). By the middle of the 1960s, many American school districts that had been
racially segregated were now being desegregated. Equality in voting and other civil
rights were being attained by African-Americans. It was obvious, though, that a wide
chasm separated the races economically. The Supreme Court had underscored the
significance of education when it ruled against Jim Crow; however, economists
stressed the role of education in human capital development and explored its varying
rates of return for different social groups.
Organized interests. Organized interests included interest groups such as the
National Education Association (NEA), the American Federation of Teachers, as well
as civil rights leaders.
Changes in government. The political and ideological landscape had been
changing since, at least, the 1958 congressional elections. The dominance of the
core liberal bloc was enhanced by its ability to deliver benefits to potential opponents
and conservative opponents of federal aid to schools were losing their power to veto
these proposals (Kingdon, 2003). The ESEA debate showed that ideological
concerns were at the root of political maneuvers by liberals to convert potential
opponents. (See Table 4.5)
Visible cluster of policy actors. Some Presidents, like Roosevelt, deliberately
grouped around themselves sharply contrasting types; Johnson had Johnson Men
(Goldman, 1969). Francis Keppel, Johnson’s Commissioner of Education, had been
a Harvard dean and brought an educational insight to the job of Commissioner of
Education. Commissioner Keppel was an essential factor in President Johnson’s
plan for elementary and secondary education. Keppel’s contributions included a
major part in the design of the bill, congressional liaison, and acting as a political
broker when compromises had to be made. President Johnson considered Bill
Moyers his personal representative of the youthful, intellectual idealism of the
1960’s. Walter W. Jenkins was President Johnson’s right hand – to the extent that
the President wanted a right hand (Goldman, 1969). Other Johnson Men included
McGeorge Bundy (foreign affairs advisor), Kermit Gordon and Walter Heller
(economic advisors), Lawrence O’Brien (congressional and political problems
advisor), Richard N. Goodwin (Latin American affairs and Peace Corps advisor),
Jack Valenti, George Reedy, and Horace Busby.
In conclusion, “the political stream flows along according to its own dynamic
and its own rules” (Kingdon, 2003) Perceptions of national mood affect a
governmental agendas, both by promoting items that fit with that mood of the nation
and by inhibiting attention to items that do not fit the mood.
Policy stream. The policy stream presents the opportunity for advocates of
various proposals to push their pet solutions or to place attention on to their special
problems” (Kingdon J. W., 2003, p. 165) in the policy formation process. (See Table
4.9) Within the policy stream, a decision agenda is formulated and major forces are
not political, but instead intellectual and personal. The political stream is an
important promoter or inhibitor of high agenda items. All the important actors in the
system, not just the politicians, judge whether the balance of forces in the political
stream favors action. The actors will also judge whether the general public would at
least tolerate the directions pursued at the elite level. It could b costly at the election
polls if they did not pursue the general public’s level of tolerance and perceptions.
Ideas. While many social scientists and educators believed that the value of a
high school degree was weakening, education seemed vital to the economy, though
in what precise ways was a matter of dispute. The Supreme Court had underscored
the significance of education when it ruled against Jim Crow; however, economists
stressed the role of education in human capital development and explored its varying
rates of return for different social groups, and many people called for enhanced
spending on those students designated gifted and talented.
Policy entrepreneurs.
People who are trying to advocate change are like surfers waiting for the big
wave. They get out where they need to be in the ocean. Once there they need to be
ready to go. They need to be ready to paddle. If they are not ready, they will not be
able to ride the wave into the beach (Kingdon, 2003). The policy window is an
opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their pet solutions or push attention to
their special projects. If they are not ready they will miss the opportunity to see the
solution become law. Policy entrepreneurs are advocates who are willing to invest
their resources-time, energy, reputation, money-to promote a position in return for
anticipated future gains in the form of material, purpose, or benefits. In order to be
considered a policy entrepreneur that person must have a claim to the hearing, is
known for their political connections or negotiating skills, and finally, they are
persistent. During Johonson’s the resources of his White House staff; the Bureau of
the Budget; an ad hoc legislative task force; and the resources of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare/Office of Education to establish priorities and set
policy agenda for the Elementary and Secondary School Act (Cannon, 1991; Cater,
C., 1991). Francis Keppel, Johnson’s Commissioner of Education, had been a
Harvard dean and brought an educational insight to the job of Commissioner of
Education. Commissioner Keppel was an essential factor in President Johnson’s
plan for elementary and secondary education. Keppel’s contributions included a
major part in the design of the bill, congressional liaison, and acting as a political
broker when compromises had to be made.
Hidden cluster of policy actors. The dominance of the core liberal bloc was
enhanced by its ability to deliver to potential opponents. These groups -
parochialschool interests and southerners - could have sided with liberals or
conservatives, depending on the content of legislation.
Coupling of Streams/Convergence
The separate streams of problems, policies, and politics come together, or
couple, at certain critical times. This coupling is most likely when a policy window -
an opportunity to push pet proposals or one’s conceptions of problems - is open,
which occurs when there is a shift in the national mood, usually indicated by
transformative elections, or new popular perceptions (Kingdon, 2003). When a
window opens and results in a restructuring of the governmental agenda, it could be
solely the result of occurrences in either the problem stream or the political stream;
however, a change in decision agenda requires the merging of all three streams. In
this case, the role of the policy entrepreneur is critical.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 established two noble
goals: to strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunities in
the nation’s schools. Title I was the heart of the bill. Most of the money allocated for
the War on Poverty was concentrated within Title I by focusing on the children of
poverty, those who were economically and culturally disadvantaged (Bailey &
Mosher, 1968). Title I recognized the impact that large concentrations of low-income
families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate
educational programs. The intent of the bill was “to provide financial assistance to
local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations of children from low
income families,” so that, “these agencies could expand and improve their
educational programs by various means (including where necessary the construction
of school facilities) which contribute particularly to meeting the special educational
needs of educationally deprived children (Public Law 89-10, Sec. 201) (Jeffrey,
1970, p.76).
Despite the immensity, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed
Congress with astonishing speed (Kosar, 2003). Congress passed the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which included Title I funding and an
antipoverty program, in 87 days. This was a step toward improving educational
opportunity, and President Johnson called ESEA “the most significant education bill
in congressional history” (Unger & Unger, 1999, p. 346).
Once the Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed, it became the
centerpiece of federal assistance to elementary and secondary education. It
garnered strong, fairly consistent support from most liberals and from many
conservatives in Congress, and opponents of federal aid lost their ability to block
education legislations.
Acceptance/Adoption
Congressional debates on education proposals are often philosophical,
displaying deep differences of opinion over the proper extent of federal power under
the Constitution. This tends to leave education policymaking to states and localities;
therefore, major education policies are enacted only under unusual circumstances,
such as during or in response to a public crisis, like the discovery of mass illiteracy
or in response to the Great Depression (Kosar, 2003).
The civil rights movement and the death of President Kennedy made the
programs of the Great Society possible; however, the Vietnam War guaranteed that
any war on poverty would not succeed (Grinspan, 1995). Regardless, the
enactment of the ESEA revolutionized the federal government’s role in education.
Prior to the law’s passage, educational policy-making had been the near exclusive
domain of state and local governments; however, part of the ESEA’s legacy is a
fierce debate over whether the federal government has become overly involved in
regulating local school districts’ affairs through programs like the ESEA. Moreover,
some critics question whether Title I’s costly programs actually raise student
performance. Nevertheless, cash-strapped school districts continue to seek and
accept ESEA funding.
President Johnson’s Great Society initiative included ground-breaking federal
legislation directed especially at enhancing opportunities for low-income families
(Bailey S. , 1966). Through Title I Johnson hoped to advance equality of opportunity
by targeting extra resources for supplemental serves to low-achieving student in
schools with the bulk of the funds going to the poorest children (Jennings, National
issues in education: Elementray and secondary education act 1965, 2002, p. 4).
“The objective was to narrow the achievement gap that separated poor children from
their peers. The act’s most pervasive strategy was compensatory education:
providing extra funding for schools to provide special services for economically
disadvantaged students” (Present, 2010, p. 14). By providing funding ESEA
recognized that children from low income families required more educational support
than children from affluent homes.
According to Joel Spring (1993), The Elementary and Secondary School Act
had at least three major consequences for future legislative actions. First, it signaled
the switch from general federal aid to education towards categorical aid, and the
tying of federal aid to national policy concerns such as poverty, defense, or economic
growth. Second, it addressed the religious conflict by linking federal aid to
educational programs directly benefiting poor children in parochial schools, and not
the institutions in which they were enrolled. Third, the reliance on state departments
of education to administer federal funds, promoted to avoid criticisms of federal
control, resulted in an expansion of state bureaucracies and larger involvement of
state governments in educational decision-making (Spring, 1993).
In summation, Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965 was not just a
federal handout to ease state and local educational budgets. It mandated a series of
programs and priorities, which involved a massive shift in the locus of policy-making
power in American education (Bailey & Mosher, 1968). As a warning of things to
come U.S. Representative Paul Findley (R. IL) stated “Federal dollars have a
strange and captivating lure. They sign a siren song which too many is irresistible,
and lure off course many an otherwise right thinking citizen” (1965).
With the passing of ESEA the Federal responsibilities grew within tightly
delimited bounds. Discretion was given to states and local education agencies to
design and implement compensatory education programs. “Federal regulations
sought to ensure that federal education funds reached the students for whom the
program’s were intended, but they did not hold state and local governments
accountable for actually raising the achievement of eligible students” (Rhodes, 2012,
p. 33). With new federal regulations of federally funded but locally administered
programs that varied in administrative practice and academic rigor began to be used.
(Rhodes, 2012) For all the good intentions of ESEA the United States continued to
face a situation where the people with the strongest self-interest in education reform,
that is low-income parents of color whose children attend public urban schools,
continued to find themselves missing at the table (Anyon, 1997).
CHAPTER SIX
2001-2008
BUSH ERA OF EDUCATION POLICY
Chapters four and five reviewed the education policy of President Franklin D.
Roosevelt and President Lyndon Baines Johnson during their terms in office. Three
beliefs concerning the President and American citizens were revealed in chapter four
and continued to hold true in chapter five. First, the American way of thinking about
politics and government hold that citizens should be sufficiently educated to play a
thoughtful role in public affairs. Second, Presidents and Congress have made little
policy to see that citizens are sufficiently educated. Finally, federal education politics
and policy making had been minimal and any suggestions of an increased role had
been generally feared and fought. With the passing of Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, some of the fear held by the public vanished.
It is not the intention of the researcher to imply that any of the actors were
more or less important to education policy development; however, the primary focus
of the research was the executive branch of the federal government. The historical
background is important to understanding the context in which education policies are
developed. The actors and actions were studied in relation to the development and
implementation of education policies on the federal level. At the policymaking end of
the continuum, from 2001-2008, is the President George W. Bush.
In this chapter, the story of George W. Bush and the elite actors are told.
This chapter is organized into five sections. Each section follows the Organized
Anarchy Model of Public Policymaking and Implementation (See Table 4.1). The
first section discusses the agenda or the list of subjects/problems that President
Bush was giving serious attention to during his presidency. This section will also give
a brief history behind the agenda of George W. Bush during the years of 2001 to
2009. The second section contains the agenda setting process and describes the
narrowing of a set of conceivable subjects to the set that actually becomes the focus
of attention. The third section follows Kingdon’s three streams of policymaking: the
problem stream, the political stream, and the policy steam (Kingdon, 2003). This
section will describe the actors, activities, and policies developed during the eight
years that President Bush was in office. Within the fourth section the coupling of
streams will be discussed. Finally, section five will describe the acceptance/adoption
phase of the Organized Anarchy Model.
This chapter is not intended to be a summary of the history of education.
Instead, it focuses on one aspect of education policy, the expansion of federal
control over education. Table 3.1 illustrates the portion of the policy-into-practice
continuum discussed in this chapter. Figure 4.3 is an organizational chart of the
policymakers who were involved in making policies during this era.
Agenda
Many historians consider the decade leading up to 2001 to be the age of
electronics. The World Wide Web was born in 1992, and it changed the way we
communicate, spend our money, do business, and look at education (Whitley,
Bradley, Sutton, & Goodwin, 2011). In 1989, only 15% of American households had
a computer; but by the year 2000, 51% of all households had a computer and 41.5%
had online access (Whitley, et al). Along with the rise of the electronic age came a
strong economy, which contributed to a record low unemployment rate. The stock
market reached an all-time high as individuals learned to buy and trade via the
internet. The strong economy allowed Americans to enjoy the country’s affluence by
traveling more, by pursuing personal hobbies and activities, and by consuming as
never before. “America faced the new millennium with an open, diversified society, a
functional democracy, a healthy economy, and the means and will to overcome any
obstacles” (Whitley, et al).
From 1965 to 1999, three forces began to shift the educational focus from that
of the industrial age, which required physical, blue collar workers, to that of the age
of knowledge. According to Peter Drucker, “a knowledge worker is a person who
gets paid for putting to work what one learned in school rather than for their physical
strength and manual skill” (Drucker, The age of social transformation, 1994). The
three forces are the SAT-ocracy, abundance, and federal attempts to raise
standards.
SAT-ocracy. “Knowledge workers are thinking workers and their thinking style
have shaped the character, leadership, and social profile of the modern age” (Pink
D. H., 2005, p. 29). The question becomes how has the knowledge worker shaped
the American public during this time frame? The answer lies in the PSAT, the SAT,
the GMAT, the LSAT, and the MCAT. These assessment tools all require logic and
analysis and have become “important gatekeepers for entry into meritocratic, middle-
class society creating a SAT-ocracy, a regime in which access to the good life
depended on the ability to reason logically, sequentially, and speedily” (Pink D. H.,
2005, p. 29). We have developed into a country whose economy is a product of the
left side of our brains, the sequential and logical side. This is a change from the
Depression era when the economy was built on industry and maintained by the hard
labor of the citizens. When the economy and society depended on factories and
mass production, logical and sequential thinking was not a necessary outcome of
education. As we moved towards the 21st century and knowledge work began to
achieve social and economic parity, then logical and sequential thinking became an
important outcome of education. The many ideas and assumptions of the
knowledge age affected notions of politics, policy, and education among those who
were considered both a baby boomer and political elite.
Abundance. For most people born before the baby boom era, scarcity was a
way of life. Citizens who were born during or after the baby boom era the “defining
feature for social, economic, and cultural life in much of the world became
abundance” (Pink D. H., 2005, p. 30). Three examples of abundance are homes and
cars, self- storage, and trash bags (Pink, 2005). During much of the twentieth
century the goal for most Americans was to own a home and a car. Two out of three
Americans own homes and there are cars owned by people than licensed drivers.
When the homes can longer store peoples possessions storage units are rented.
When storage is not an option the item is tossed. As business writer Polly LaBarre
notes, “The United States spends more on trash bags than ninety other countries
spend on everything” (LaBarre, 2003). President Bush and those of his age group
and younger helped to create this era, one that was unfathomable during either
Roosevelt’s or Johnson’s era.
George Bush was born in 1946, during the early years of the baby boom. He
was a member of the largest cohort of people in the United States and “he and his
generation have changed jobs, changed dwellings, and changed dreams more than
any other in American History” (Mansfield, 2003, p. 26). This generation continues to
be perceived as the most creative, unsettled, inconsistent, brilliant, and selfishly
compassionate generation on earth (Mansfield, 2003). They believed in SAT-ocracy.
Federal attempts to raise standards. Since the 1980’s, education reform in
the United States has been largely driven by the setting of academic standards for
what students should know and be able to do upon graduation. Standards-based
reform incorporates clear, measurable standards for all school students.
Criterionreferenced rankings are used to measure students against concrete
standards, and curriculum assessments and professional development are aligned
to the standards.
The changing economy, a growing discontent for public education among the
general public and the research community, and criticism for the ESEA Title I
Program helped to create an education crisis in the 1980’s. Education was depicted
negatively to the American public by political elites, business CEO’s, and the media.
Most federal aid programs to support education were condemned. Congressmen
and business leaders argued that that past federal investments had not improved
school performance and that it was time to hold the public education system
accountable. The policy elites tied federal investments to human capital.
Between 1991 and 1999, three major efforts were undertaken to raise the
education standards through federal policy: America 2000, Goals 2000, and the
Improving America’s School Act of 1994 (Kosar, 2003). During the 1980’s and
1990’s, the emergence of a national education crisis spurred the development of
America 2000 and the idea of national standards. This crisis also helped to
transform the debate surrounding federal education policy. The subject of the
debate shifted from a focus on school resources, as it was during the enactment of
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, to educational results and
accountability for those results. Policies, however, are not formulated in response to
an immediate perceived crisis by politicians. Advocates pushed for these policies for
years, but standards-based, results-based, and accountability-based policies did not
make it on to the institutional agenda (Anderson J. A., 2000).
The mid-to late 1990’s saw the playing out of the conflict between three
political forces: antistatism, liberalism, and quality schools advocacy. In the 1990’s,
antistatists were able to effectively block or water down standards policy because
liberals and quality school advocates could not agree on the structure needed to
push the standards policy forward. The liberals and quality school advocates were
divided over what was the cause for academic underachievement among American
students. These two factions could not agree whether the problem existed because
of insufficient resources or under-performing schools (Kosar, 2003).
Representatives and senators on the left held to the traditional liberal school
reform position: American public schools were underfunded and/or inequitably
funded. The role of the federal government was first and foremost to alleviate the
inequities by providing additional funding and resources to schools in poor
neighborhoods and then to all other schools (Kosar, 2003). In their opinion,
continuing with the social programs of the 1960’s would solve the problems facing
education.
There was a shift in the Republican view of the federal role concerning
education. There is no doubt that Republicans learned that to be for less federal
involvement in education was a mistake. The reason was simple: the public was no
longer interested in abstract arguments about federalism. They did not want to hear
about theories - they wanted to see results. The public believed that if there was
truly a national educational emergency, then the federal government should do
something fix it (Finn, Ravitch, & Fancher, 1984). Shortly after Clinton defeated Dole
for President of the United States, the then Governor of Texas George W. Bush
remarked, “There is no question that from a political perspective, Clinton stole the
education issue and it affected the women’s vote. “Republicans must now say that
we are for education” (Balz, 1996, p. A6).
President Bush’s agenda. Even though many presidential actions are
constrained by the established structure of the office and by environmental demands
on the president, the Bush Presidency illustrated the impact of personality on the
major policies of a presidency. President Bush had a bias for action and impatience
with procedural delay. Bush “felt that one part of his role as president was to force
decisions, and to make sure it was on everybody’s mind where we’re headed”
(Pfiffner).
On Saturday, January 20th, 2001, in his first inaugural address, President
Bush presented his blueprint for his next four years in office. He stated, “While many
of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the justice, of our own
country. The ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing schools and hidden
prejudice and the circumstances of their birth” (Bush, George. First Inaugural
Address, 2001). Bush’s agenda would “consist only of those issues that were to be
addressed by governmental action” (Anderson, Brady, & Bullock, 1978, p. 8).
President Bush had three major agenda items at the onset of his presidency:
education, a ten year tax-cut, and a foreign policy initiative. Three lesser agenda
items were added latter: a prescription drug plan for senior citizens, pay increases
for military personnel, and a greater role for faith-based charities in delivering social
services (Kettl, 2003, p. 27). By using a rhetorical strategy of going public with his
policy agenda concerning education early in the campaign (Holtzman, 2006),
President Bush set education reform in the United States as the agenda for others to
follow.
Agenda Setting Process
The agenda setting process is the first step in the policy-making process
following the policy-into-practice continuum. It must be remembered that “before an
issue can be acted upon, it must become a recognized part of the policy agenda”
(Simon, 2010, p. 83). According to Cobb and Elder (1972), agenda setting may
involve the transfer of items from a non-governmental systemic agenda to a
governmental formal agenda. Rhetoric often calls attention to a problem and sets
forth a broad policy emphasis, but it does not necessarily advocate specific
programs. Instead, it is designed to help other governmental actors see that a
problem exists and to prepare them for action. This suggests that decisions about
national interests are the result of a political process in which a country’s leaders
ultimately arrive at a decision about the importance of a given internal event or crisis
to the country’s well-being (Nuechterlein, 1978). The way that the government deals
with these basic national issues is referred to as public interest or domestic policy.
Basic public interests can be described as defense interests, economic interests,
world order interests, and ideological interests (Nuechterlein, 1978). Since
Roosevelt’s presidency, education policy has fallen under all four categories of
interest, making the role of education an integral piece in the agenda setting
process. Within the agenda setting process, education policy is a reactive process
that responds to the needs of the public interest.
Reactive process to education. The push for accountability and standards
was due in large part to the effective efforts of business entrepreneurs, civil rights
entrepreneurs, educational conservatives, and state leaders who were capable of
maintaining and/or increasing their agendas within the agenda setting process. An
example was the collaboration between business entrepreneurs and Texas Governor
George W. Bush, which proved valuable for all parties involved as all were able to
achieve their goals (Rhodes, 2012).
New direction for education. “The 2000 presidential rhetorical campaign
affirmed the new direction that federal education politics and policy, with respect to
education standards and Title I, was going to take” (Kosar, 2003, p. 461). Then,
Governor Bush ran as the compassionate conservative leader (Hatfield, 2002;
McClosky, 2006; McClellan, 2008; Baker, 2009). He campaigned in favor of the
expansion of the federal role in education through standards and accountability. His
position, which resonated with voters, was a mix of quality school advocacy and
liberalism (Robelen, Bush leading Republicans in new direction, 2000).
To appease the liberals in Congress “President Bush campaigned for a
compensatory reading program that would cost $1 billion per year” (Kosar, 2003, p.
462) the reading program stemmed from the President’s wife Laura Bush. As a
former school teacher and librarian, Laura felt the need to promote the science and
seriousness of early childhood cognitive development through literacy, reading, and
child development. Her Ready to Read, Ready to Learn Initiative focused on what
she believed to be the most fundamental issue facing Americans - providing young
children with the skills and environment that nurtures cognitive reading skills (Felix,
2002).
For the quality of schools advocates, Bush urged that Title I be reformed so
that accountability would serve as the catalyst of reform (Bush, 2010). Standards
and assessments would serve as the foundation of the accountability system. He
argued that all students in grades three through eight, who attend schools receiving
Title I aide, should be tested to see if they are making educational progress. He also
proposed that states should be rewarded or punished financially based upon
whether they raised test scores and reduced the test score gap between whites and
non-whites, poor and non-poor. States would also be required to publish school
report cards that broke down the test score data by district, school, and student race,
ethnicity, and gender, which would be shared with parents (Kosar, 2003). To the
delight of quality of school advocates/school choice groups, Bush also wanted
children who attended schools receiving Title I funds to be permitted to transfer to a
public or private school of their choice if their school failed to raise test scores. “He
added that these students should be able to take $1500 in Title I funds with them”
(Kosar, 2003, p. 462). Finally, he advocated spending $3 billion to upgrade and
create new charter schools (Dao, 2000).
Factors affecting policy formation. Two factors have an effect on the
agenda setting process: the participants/actors who were active in setting the
agenda and the processes by which agenda items and alternatives come into
prominence (Kingdon, 2003).
Participants/actors in agenda setting process. “Policies create an
environment of exchange relationships between the players and the actors”
(Meltsner & Bellavitta, 1983) but before any exchange can take place, one must
know who the players and actors are. In general, the principal actors in policy
formation are the legitimate, or formal, policy makers: people who occupy positions
in the governmental arena that entitle them to authoritatively assign priorities and
commit resources (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). For effective action to take place
within the agenda setting process, each participant/actor must have knowledge,
understanding, and awareness of the policy environment and his/her role within that
environment. At a minimum, the actors in the executive branch, including the
President of the United States, Congress, and bureaucrats, are expected to set the
general boundaries in which the creation and implementation of a policy will occur
(Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). Various forces outside of the government,
including the media, interest groups, political parties, and the general public, also
have a stake in policy-making process.
Change in party control or interparty ideological balances brought by
elections. President George W. Bush entered office confronted by an evenly divided
Senate (50 Republicans, 50 Democrats) and House behind him (221 Republicans,
212 Democrats) (Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, 2012). (See
Table 4.6) “Bush had actually lost the popular ballot but won the electoral vote in the
2000 Presidential election which had not happened since 1876” (Kosar, 2003, p.
465).
There was a shift in the Republican view of the federal role concerning
education. Republicans learned that diminished federal involvement in education
was a mistake. The reason for the change was simple - the public was not
interested in abstract arguments about federalism. The public believed that if there
was truly a national educational emergency, then the federal government should
assist in fixing the problem (Finn, Ravitch, & Fancher, 1984). According to Margaret
Spellings, a close Bush education advisor who later became Bush’s second
Secretary of Education, “the standard shtick among Republicans prior to 2000 had
been to abolish the Department of Education, no federal intervention—that sort of
thing. That changed with Bush” (Interview with Margaret Spellings, 2008).
The President of the United States. The president’s role in the policy-making
process is complicated. “Presidents not only face the demand to explain what they
have done and intend to do, but they also have come under increasing pressure to
speak out on perceived crises and to minister to the moods and emotions of the
populace” (Ceaser, Thuroe, Tulis, & Ressette, 1997, p. 236). In addition, “the
President’s agenda is often national in scope, whereas legislators are interested in
local benefits” (Simon, 2010, p. 76).
Throughout his campaign, the President preached about his compassionate
conservative values (McClellan, 2008). By his choice of campaign issues and
themes, Bush offered himself as a different kind of Republican (Jacobson, 2008). He
offered himself as the compassionate conservative. “Conservatism is a philosophy
that puts government in its proper perspective that says government ought to do a
few things well, that there is a role for government. The element of compassion says
that the policies will lead to a better tomorrow. Secondly, compassion indicates that
an activist plan, with a strategy is being used” (Hatfield, 2002, p. 213) by the person
labeled as compassionate.
Circumstances allowed President Bush to go beyond the normal pattern of
slow, incremental change. As governor and President, George W. Bush preferred to
act decisively and intuitively. He stated, “I just think it’s instinctive, I’m not a textbook
player, I’m a gut player” (Edwards & Davies, 2004, p. 162). As with all personality
traits, there can be both a positive and negative side. On the positive side, a
President has a better chance of getting things done by acting decisively if he faces
a culture where new initiatives can be postponed long enough until the opposition
develops the necessary plan and rhetoric to stop an initiative entirely. The down side
for acting decisively includes making premature decisions, thus failing to examine
the full implications of decisions and the use of information before it is fully examined
(Edwards & Davies, 2004).
In his first inaugural address on Saturday, January 20, 2001, President Bush
stated, “While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the
justice, of our own country. The ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing
schools and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth. I will work to build
a single nation of justice and opportunity” (Bush G. , 20 January 2011). Bush
demonstrated his rhetorical leadership by “using symbolic language to
advantageously shape public opinion which, in a representative political system, can
serve as a means to nearly an end” (Holtzman, 2006, pp. 1). Through his pledge to
reconstruct the American public education system, both George Bush’s personal
views and compassionate conservative ideals became apparent to the American
citizens.
Congress. Trust was lacking between leaders of the two parties in Congress.
Memories of past affronts were long and distrust ran deep. Bitterness over the
contested 2000 election result still lingered among some Democrats. Suspicion over
whether President Bush was sincere about wanting to act as a bipartisan President
and unite, not a divide the federal government was commonplace, and some liberals
doubted the phrase compassionate conservative could ever be more than a
meaningless paradox (McClellan, 2008). George W. Bush’s legislative strategy,
however, showed that he had learned from the unhappy experience of his father.
Rather than lead a hopeless crusade for school vouchers, Bush played the role of
cross-partisan conciliator, isolating the more extreme members in both parties and
building on areas of bipartisan agreement (Rhodes, 2012) through the use of
strategic rhetoric. By focusing on the strategic use of rhetoric in his relationship with
congress Bush was able to shape public opinion and achieve legislative success on
Capitol Hill (Holtzman, 2006).
Not everyone was convinced, however, that federal interference in education
could be successful. While speaking on behalf of the accountability issues, Senator
Judd Gregg (R-NH) pointed out that the federal government had spent $120 billion in
the 35 years since the enactment of Title I, which was directed at trying to help
lowincome kids; however, the result of those expenditures was that low-income kids
were reading two grade levels below their peers (Heiss & McGuinn, 2009). Gregg
stated, “there has been absolutely no academic improvement in those kids over this
35-year period. In the last 10 years, when we spent the most amount of money, the
academic improvement also has not increased at all” (Heiss & McGuinn, 2009).
Courts.
The need to actually provide an adequate education to all citizens has
become even more urgent today when the information demands of the computer era
have heightened the level of cognitive skills needed to be an informed citizen
(Petrovich & Wells, 2005, p. 305). Historically the link between education and
democracy has been the availability of information. During the agriculture and
industrial eras when information was limited to the elite population it was not of
immediate political concern to the uneducated. In the current age of information and
technology information is in abundance and extended to all citizens the need to
provide an adequate education has become increasingly more urgent (Petrovich &
Wells, 2005).
Excellence and equity continue to merge together as we expect our students
to learn a more cognitive level to match the skills needed for success. “The lawyers,
plaintiffs in education adequacy cases, advocates and courts have begun to
articulate demanding concepts of adequacy in the education opportunities they
expect to be extended to historically disadvantaged minority populations” (Petrovich
& Wells, 2005, p. 305) Standards-based reform with its belief that all children can
learn at high cognitive levels has aided the increase in litigation for adequacy in two
ways. First, the standards provide courts with distinguishable and workable
remedies. Second, standards have increased interest in basic goals of education in
a democratic society (Petrovich & Wells, 2005).
Business leaders.
Neither congressional Democrats nor congressional Republicans
seemed to be particularly receptive to entrepreneurial efforts to promote standards,
testing, and accountability in the mid-to late 1990’s. In this unfavorable environment,
business entrepreneurs engaged in a softening up position. That is, they sustained
their position to shape the agenda when political conditions improved (Kingdon J. ,
1984). Business entrepreneurs began working closely with rising Republican star
and eventual Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush of Texas on an
approach to further integrate standards, testing, and accountability reforms into
federal education programs (Rhodes, 2012).
The business leaders leading the charge for standards-based reform and
accountability believed that “teaching children was like running a business. There
are inputs (the dollars spent on public education) and out puts (test scores). If the
test scores are high enough, then graduates are ready for jobs in the low end of the
labor market and the nation can compete globally” (Ivins & Dubose, 2005, p. 85).
These same leaders looked at students as human capitol, parents as customers,
and teachers as sellers in the marketplace (Ivins & Dubose, 2005, p. 85) The
strategic education goal of these business leaders was to set up partnerships that
involve market penetration in schools.
Diffusion of ideas in professional circles and among policy elites.
Throughout his two terms in office, President Bush behaved as though the
Whitehouse was a business and he was the boss. He was even dubbed the CEO
President by the press (Duffy, 2001). The CEO style President Bush embraced
included a bold, but agenda. The President would not veer from that course, no
matter what new situation or information was presented, and the process for
developing his education policy was no different.
The President delegated this policy area to a few advisors who shared his
same viewpoints on what could be considered controversial education policies
(McClosky, 2006). Those invited to the table were Carl Rove, Karen Hughes, Andy
Card, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Josh Bolten, Staff Secretary Harriet Miers,
Domestic Policy Advisor Margaret LaMontagene, National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice, National Economic Adviser Larry Lindsey, Vice Presidential
Counselor Mary Matalin, Legislative liaison Nick Calio, and business leader Sandy
Kress (Ivins & Dubose, 2005, p. 86) After strategy meetings, priority issues “would
be disseminated through the White House policy communications and legislative
divisions so that ideas could be discussed and developed for discussion at future
sessions” (McClellan, 2008, p. 94). The advisors, many of whom were strong
business advocates, ensured that the education agenda followed the principals of
the business model. These key advisors had the opportunity to see the education
agenda throughout the policy-making process, from beginning to end.
Processes
A policy is a course of action that could become a law, a regulation, a project,
or other public decision. Awareness of a policy’s impact can lead policy makers to
take or change a position on a policy or to work to amend the policy, so
understanding the effects of a proposed policy can affect what the policy will be,
whether the policy is adopted, and how effective it will be (Loomis, 2001). The
reform of the Elementary and Secondary Act, which by and large governed the
federal policy that addressed K-12 education, was going to cause changes.
According to President Bush, the name change would signify the new direction
being taken: greater emphasis on accountability and the disaggregation of data to
illuminate achievement gaps, greater emphasis on standardized assessments, local
control of schools, and funding tied to accountability (NEA
Government Relations, 2011, p. 1).
The problem stream. The problem steam requires focusing public and
policymakers’ attention on a particular social problem. By defining the problem,
policy makers can either apply a new public policy for the resolution of the problem
or let the problem fade from sight. Problems often come to the attention of
governmental decision makers not through some sort of political pressure or
perceptual sleight of hand, but because some more or less systematic indicator
simply shows that a problem exists (Kingdon, 2003). (See Table 4.8)
Indicators. The accountability movement of the 1990’s succeeded in testing
kids regularly, evaluating local schools, and making the information about schools
and districts public. In doing so, it awakened many parents and citizens to the
realities of the educational system, giving them a well-grounded basis for making
demands and taking action. Above all else, it shocked and mobilized the leaders of
political groups that represented disadvantaged constituencies (Moe, 2011).
Focusing events. Indicators do not always draw attention to problems that
need to be addressed. Often, something must happen, a focusing event, to get the
attention of the people in and around the government who can affect change, as
happened in Roosevelt’s era with the Great Depression or the assassination of the
President John F. Kennedy in Johnson’s era (Kingdon, 2003). During George Bush’s
time in office that event was September 11, 2001 when America was attacked by
terrorist. “The process of reconciling the House and Senate bills dragged through
the summer of 2001” (Bush G. W., 2010, p. 276) which was worrisome to the
President. When Congress returned from recess in early September, Bush set to
reenergize the debate and see the bill through to the end.
Throughout the fall President Bush urged Congress to finish No Child Left Behind.
In a show of unity after the attacks Congress passed No Child Left Behind by a
bipartisan landslide in December of 2001 (Bush G. W., 2010).
Budget prioritization. President Bush and Congress agreed to an increase
in Title I funding over a seven-year period. President Bush stated, “That’s exactly
the kind of budget I submitted to the United States Congress…. It’s a budget that
says we could spend more money on the public’s education system around America.
It’s a budget that prioritizes education” (Alterman & Green, 2004, p. 139). President
Bush’s education budget was $3.5 billion dollars greater than that of the final year of
the Clinton administration, with Clinton’s education funding falling just short of $10
billion dollars while Bush’s education budget being $13.5 billion dollars (Kosar,
2003).
The federal government ensured state compliance with standards and
accountability regulations by tying it directly to the funding of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. The act supports and regulates the majority of federal
K12 programs in public schools. Title I of the ESEA originated in 1965. Its purpose is
to provide funds to support and improve the achievement of poor and disadvantaged
students, and is important to note that the general student population is not eligible
for these funds. By 2006, the education budget expanded to include $12.7 billion for
Title I grants to districts, $11.4 million for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) grants to states, $32 million for advanced placement classes, and $11.3
billion for vocational education (Armstrong, 2006).
Problem definition.
Values. The historical roots of these values are deeply embedded in the
cultural streams that comprise the common heritage of the United States. These
values permeate the ideologies promulgated by political parties, religions, schools,
and other social institutions. President Bush’s personality - as exhibited in his
tendency for action, his moral certainty, and his personality approach to politics - has
made important differences in his policy choices and thus in the direction of the
United States government (Pfiffner).
Equality. Income inequality in the United States had lessened between the
1930’s and 1960’s, but it had begun to grow again in the 1970’s, through the Carter,
Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton administrations (Zelizer, 2010). Bush also stood to
suffer at the hands of the minority voters because of his antagonism to welfare and
to affirmative action. He and his advisors launched new policies to try to convince
African Americans and Hispanics that the Republicans would deliver welfare through
private rather than public institutions and to improve minority education and then
success in the workforce through the provision of the No Child Left Behind Act
(Zelizer, 2010).
Efficiency. The increasing technical complexity of 19th century industrialization
necessitated a more highly educated workforce, which improved the support of and
provision for public schooling.
Accountability. Proposals advocated by civil rights entrepreneurs and their
congressional allies went further than Bush’s No Child Left Behind blueprint by
insisting that students reach academic proficiency within ten years and by requiring
all teachers to be highly qualified by 2005 (Lieverman/Roemer/Dooley; Miller/Kildee,
2001).
Standards movement. From 1989 to 1992, important shifts in the politics of
education reform in the United States began to take shape. The first shift was the
rise in prominence of a standards-based reform paradigm, which proposed to
strengthen educations systems by aligning them around coordinated standards,
testing, and accountability policies when discussing how to improve schools
(Rhodes, 2012). The second shift was the growing momentum built for federal
involvement in education revolving around the coordinated standards, testing, and
accountability for results. The growing enthusiasm was largely due to the effective
efforts of business entrepreneurs, civil rights entrepreneurs, educational
conservatives, and state leaders in building institutions and relationships capable of
maintaining and expanding their agendas (Rhodes, 2012).
Liberty. Liberty for Americans has meant the freedom to choose, to be able to
select from among different courses of action. The desire for choice fueled historical
American affection for a market economy. Competition among producers, along with
other benefits, is held to expand the range of items from which consumers can
choose. There lies the reasoning for school choice, charter schools, and private
school education.
Comparisons. If one is not achieving what others are achieving, and if one
believes in equality, then the relative disadvantage constitutes a problem (Kingdon,
2003). Sometimes people make these comparisons across nations, so the mere fact
of being behind in the greatest country on earth is enough to constitute a problem for
some people (Kingdon, 2003, p. 111). International comparisons of curriculum and
student performance across national borders using PISA and TIMS scores have
become more specific, sophisticated, and credible. In recent years, the audience for
these reports has shifted from statisticians and academics to policy makers and the
general public (Conley D. T., 2003). Much has been made of the United States
average test scores compared to that of other, industrialized nations on these
assessments. It appears that the highest-achieving nations are making steep,
strategically smart investments in education while the United States is squandering
much of its human capital (Darling-Hammond, 2010). The United States is viewed as
standing still while more focused nations are moving rapidly ahead (Darling-
Hammond, 2010).
Three countries that have influenced education reform in the United States
and have each gone through educational reform processes in their countries are
China, Finland, and the United Kingdom (Table 1.1). These three countries
consistently earn top scores on the PISA and TIMMS International assessments, are
advocates of choice/market involvement, and have some form of accountability
system. Each country overhauled its education systems in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
Although none of these countries lacks problems and challenges, each has created
a consistently high-quality education system for all of its students (Darling-
Hammond, 2010).
Political stream. The political stream is where the governmental agenda, a
list of issues or problems to be resolved, is formed. President Lyndon B. Johnson
signed into law the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 as the
federal government’s definitive entry into public education (Hana, 2005).
Education in the United States since the 1980’s has been largely driven by the
setting of academic standards for what students should know and be able to do
upon graduation, and nearly every student entering a post-secondary institution has
been shaped by the nation’s K-12 system. The political compromises that led to
the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) helped align various factions behind
the bill and thereby combine the efforts of Congress, business entrepreneurs, civil
rights entrepreneurs, educational conservatives, and state leaders. This new
alignment expanded the role of the federal government in education.
Major forces affecting the political stream.
Public policy could treat political motivations and the efforts needed to obtain
support as something outside of the policy making process. The political stream is
an important promoter or inhibitor of high agenda status. All of the elite actors in the
system, most especially the President judge whether the balance of forces in the
political stream favors action. They also judge whether the general public would
tolerate the direction being pursued in advancing a policy. Without knowing why
there are shifts in attitudes and motivations the policy makers would be missing one
very important piece to the policy making process which could be costly at the polls
later.
National mood. According to Victor Klatt II, a long-time Republican advisor
noted the federalism debate is a within-the-Beltway issue. “People don’t care who
fixes the problem, they just want it fixed. The public desire for action, moreover, was
not going to disappear. It seems like you are always seeing stories in the
newspapers about how bad the schools are doing, how low the test scores are.
Parents see this and are concerned” (Klatt, 2002 cited by Kosar, 2003, p. 465).
On September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration was hit with unexpected
terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The immediate reaction of
President Bush’s administration involved expanding the President’s power to keep
our nation secure and free from further harm. President Bush got what he wished
for, and for at least the beginning of his term, there was a united Congress who
approved of these increases in power in order to protect the country. Prior to the
attacks, in May 2001, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 55% of the
public felt the President was doing his job in office, while 40% of the public
disapproved; however, directly after the attacks on September 11th, President Bush’s
approval ratings soared to 90% approval with only 6% disapproving of his actions
(Polling Report, Inc. 2010). This approval remained high, over 80% approval, until
the spring of the following year (Polling Report, Inc. 2010).
Organized interests.
Business entrepreneurs. The Business Coalition for Education Reform
(BCER) drew on input from the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the National Alliance of Business, the National Association of
Manufacturers, and other major business organizations to forge consensus on major
principles for the reauthorization of the ESEA (Rhodes, 2012). They also sought
advice from its collective memberships and from a network of over 500 state
education priorities (Interview with Margaret Spellings, 2008). The product of years
of formal and informal conversations, the Business Coalition’s statement of principles
called on policymakers to further intensify the federal commitment to standards, as
well as the testing and accountability reforms embedded in the IASA, Improving
America’s School’s Act, the reauthorization of ESEA during President
Clinton’s time in office (Packer, 2010). Ed Rust, Chairman of State Farm Insurance
and a major player in education circles within the business community, summarized
the BCER’s position in June 1999 congressional testimony:
States should set clear expectations for academic content with substantial
depth and breadth. Federal aid should be used to encourage continuous
improvements in state academic standards and assessments, and the
creation of sound accountability systems. Accountability should be measured
by student performance results, not by administrative compliance, and those
results should be disclosed publicly. Parents and the community at large
should know how well their schools are doing and how they compare with
schools elsewhere. (Rust, 1999)
Neither congressional Democrats nor congressional Republicans seemed to
be particularly receptive to entrepreneurial efforts to promote standards, testing, and
accountability in the mid-to late 1990’s. In this unfavorable environment, business
entrepreneurs engaged in a softening up position. That is, they sustained their
position to shape the agenda when political conditions improved (Kingdon, 1984).
Business entrepreneurs began working closely with rising Republican star and
eventual Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush of Texas on an approach
to further integrate standards, testing, and accountability reforms into federal
education programs (Rhodes, 2012).
Civil rights entrepreneurs. To bolster the case for renewed federal leadership,
civil rights entrepreneurs set out to provide concrete evidence that coordinated
standards-based reforms to raise student achievement, especially among the poor
and minority students. In the fall of 1998, the Education Trust administered a survey
to twelve hundred high-performing schools serving concentrations of poor students
to identify the factors contributing to the effectiveness of the school.
Civil rights entrepreneurs made a large mark on the major pre-election
standards, testing, and accountability proposals. Sandy Kreiss, top Education Aid to
President Bush, called civil rights entrepreneurs the intellectual fathers of No Child
Left Behind for their advocacy of policy provisions. Most notable were their stringent
focus on the achievement of disadvantaged students, requiring states to report
assessment scores of subgroups of students, and holding schools accountable for
subgroup performance (Kress, 2008; Hess & Petrilli, 2009). The goal was to build
muscle where there was little or none, and the Education Trust and members of both
sides of the aisle were deeply involved.
Unions: National Education Association and American Federation of
Teachers. According to Joel Packer, top lobbyist with the NEA, the teachers unions
played a critical role in negotiating the teacher quality measures contained in No
Child Left Behind (Packer, 2010). Like other special interest groups, the teacher
unions tried to put a positive spin on their activities. The unions claimed that what is
good for teachers is good for kids; however, when dealing with the unions, the Bush
administration knew they were not in the business of representing the interests of
children. They represented the job-related interests of the members, and these
interests were simply not the same as the interest of children (Moe, 2011).
Changes in government. The most consequential effects of accountability
and choice during the first twenty years was not the impact on the schools
themselves, but rather the impact on the politics of American education and, in
particular, on the political alliances that determine the prospects for reform. They
have propelled both the emergence of a new alliance and a new balance of power
far more conducive to change (Moe, 2011).
Visible cluster of policy actors. John F. (Jack) Jennings, an aide who
worked on education issues in the House for three decades, noted that the debates
around the Bush proposal were less rancorous than in previous years (Jennings,
2002). According to Jennings (2002), whoever proposed a policy was almost as
important as what the policy was. Other important actors included Representative
George Miller; Senator Edward Kennedy, who drafted the language and mechanisms
of NCLB, and John Boehner.
Policy stream. The policy stream presents the opportunity for policy
advocates to push solutions while placing attention on special problems” (Kingdon J.
W., Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2003, p. 165). Within the policy
stream, a decision agenda is formulated influence by major forces that are not
political, but instead intellectual and personal. The political stream is an important
promoter or inhibitor of high agenda items. All the important actors in the system,
not just the politicians, judge whether the balance of forces in the political stream
favors action. The actors will also judge whether the general public would at least
tolerate the directions pursued at the elite level. It could be costly at the election
polls if they did not pursue the general public’s level of tolerance and perceptions
(Kosar, 2003).
Policy entrepreneurs. People who are trying to advocate change are like
surfers waiting for the big wave. They get out where they need to be in the ocean.
Once there they need to be ready to go. They need to be ready to paddle. If they
are not ready, they will not be able to ride the wave into the beach (Kingdon, 2003).
The policy window is an opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their pet
solutions or push attention to their special projects. If they are not ready they will
miss the opportunity to see the solution become law. Policy entrepreneurs are
advocates who are willing to invest their resources-time, energy, reputation, moneyto
promote a position in return for anticipated future gains in the form of material,
purpose, or benefits. In order to be considered a policy entrepreneur that person
must have a claim to the hearing, is known for their political connections or
negotiating skills, and finally, they are persistent. Knowing that Rod Paige,
Secretary of Education could not get the job done concerning education reform
President Bush brought Sandy Kress with him to the Whitehouse as a top aide
handling education. “He was the point man for the administration in negotiating No
Child Left Behind in Congress (Collins, 2012, p. 101). Before coming to Washington
he had been a consultant to the Texas Governors Business Council and upon
leaving Washington began working as a lobbyist for Pearson PLC, one of the world’s
largest test publishers. “Sandy Kress was devout education-policy reformer and
policy wonk who exuded confidence to the point of arrogance. He had mastered the
minutiae of public-education policy” (Ivins & Dubose, 2005, p. 85) and was
committed to education reform.
Coupling of Streams/Convergence
The separate streams of problems, policies, and politics come together at
certain critical times. Solutions become joined to problems, and both of them are
joined to favorable political forces. Coupling normally occurs when a policy window -
an opportunity to push pet proposals or one’s conceptions of problems - is open
(Kingdon, 2003), which usually occurs when there is a shift in the national mood. It
is during the coupling stage that either the governmental agenda or the decision
agenda is set. A restructuring of the governmental agenda could be the result of
occurrences in either the problem stream or the political stream, whereas a
restructuring of the decision agenda requires the joining of all three streams. In this
case (Kingdon J. , 1984) the role of the policy entrepreneur is critical.
Though it took nearly a year to pass, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
was a compromise between both parties, sealing the consensus on standards and
the federal government’s role in education. The shared understanding surrounding
standards-based reforms forged by business entrepreneurs and civil rights
entrepreneurs over the previous decade formed the basis for an alliance with
President Bush, his administration, and top congressional Democrats and
Republicans (Rhodes, 2012). The final votes in both houses of Congress were
overwhelmingly in favor: 381 to 41 in the House, 87 to 10 in the Senate (Office of
the Clerk of the House of Representatives, 2012). The celebratory tour of the
politicians who forged NCLB was telling. On the same platform, hands raised
together, were two of the most liberal members of Congress, Senator Ted Kennedy
(D-MA) and Representative George Miller (D-CA), and two of the most conservative,
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Representative John Boehner (R-OH). Between
them stood George W. Bush, a Republican President from Texas, and the new
middle ground in federal education policy (Kosar, 2003).
At the signing of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), President Bush stated that
public education had a moral obligation to provide all children with a world-class
education. Furthermore, states had to be accountable for the billions of dollars
invested into the education system. The accountability sections of the NCLB hold
public educators directly responsible for the effectiveness of their instruction efforts
(Popham W. , 2004).
Acceptance/Adoption
At its core, No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is a civil rights issue and requires
a great deal of commitment from state and local officials to ensure that federal civil
rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, are being followed. The 50th anniversary of Brown vs. the
Board of Education is a stark reminder that school integration has not been
accompanied by equality of student achievement across color and income lines.
The clearly set goals of NCLB offered an unprecedented opportunity to raise
expectations and significantly narrow achievement gaps that persisted in American
schools (Education Commission of the States, 2004). “The priorities of the NCLB Act
did not address reforms in every federal education program, but they did address a
general vision for reforming the Elementary and Secondary Act and linking federal
dollars to specific performance goals to ensure improved results” (Present, 2010, p.
68). No Child Left Behind chose to address the issue of children of poverty through
enforced accountability.
The most significant impact accountability and choice made was not on the
schools themselves, but rather on the politics of American education and, in
particular, on the political alliances that determined the prospects for reform. They
have propelled both the emergence of new alliances and a balance of power far
more conducive to change (Moe, 2011). More and more of the federal funds used for
education are going to for-profit companies. These companies write the test, grade
the test, provide government funded tutoring if the students do not do well on the test
and they lobby for the test. For-profit education companies are running schools with
dollars from the government many of these schools are public schools as charter
schools. Under the law, for profit company could get a non-profit group to serve as
sponsor for a charter that was almost, or entirely the creation of the for profit
operator. A study conducted by the National Education Policy Center at the
University of Colorado found that only about a quarter of for-profit virtual schools met
federal standard for academic progress (Collins, 2012, p. 107).
The federal government increased their influence over the states and local
education agencies through the use of leveraged dollars. With these funds came a
range of requirements. One of the most significant requirements is the reporting of
Title I student’s achievement progress. Title I students must be evaluated in math
and reading. The results are reported to the state and then to the federal
government requiring an increasing amount of reporting from local and state school
districts.
Finally, NCLB emphasized accountability by imposing constraints on school
systems. According to Jennings and Rentner,
The achievement gaps persist among different ethnic groups. The
streamlining of school curricula is such that critical areas of learning
required for students to have a well-rounded education are ignored and
neglecting students who will not attend colleges or Universities after
high school (Jennings & Rentner as cited in Gay. 2007. p. 13).
Disadvantaged students and school administrators are held to high
accountability standards without the needed resources.
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Former United States President Ronald Reagan has been quoted as saying,
“I do not want to go back to the past; I want to go back to the past way of facing the
future” (Will, 2008, para. 22). President Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, saw
history as largely a chronicle of mistakes to be avoided (McCullough, 2003, para.
46); however, reviewing the lessons of the past prepares us to face the challenges of
the future (Perry, 2009). Finally, Edith Hamilton writes, in the preface of her book
The Greek Way,
The past can be of comfort to us in the troubled present. We have many silent
sanctuaries in which we can find breathing space to free ourselves from the
personal, to rise above our harassed and perplexed minds and catch sight of
values that are stable, which no selfish and timorous preoccupations can
make waver, because they are the hard-won permanent possessions of
humanity. (Hamilton, 1930, as cited McCullough, 2003, para. 5)
The “great presidents learn from the history of the office” (McCullough as
cited in transcript of Romney on '60 minutes', 2012). According to the historian
David McCullough “when the world is storm-driven and the bad that happens and the
worse that threatens are so urgent as to shut everything else from view, then we
need to know all the strong fortresses of the spirit which men have built through the
ages continues to surround us” ( McCullough, 2003, para. 6 ). Such is the case with
the current state of education in the United States. Unfortunately, the policy elites
are not willing to or do not want to view the past successes and failures of policy
initiatives to reform education as they develop policy for the future of education.
Daniel Boorstin, former Librarian of Congress, wisely said that, “trying to plan for the
future without a sense of the past is like trying to plant cut flowers” (McCullough,
Year, p. 20). America’s robust historical record is our strong fortress. It can be a
resource for those who shape federal policy. “Of all the sustaining themes in our
story as a nation, as clear as any has been the importance put on education, one
generation after another, beginning with the first village academies in New England
and the establishment of Harvard and the College of William and Mary demonstrates
that the place of education in the values of the first presidents is unmistakable”
(McCullough, 2003, para. 52).
This study of Presidential actions during three eras of educational reform set
out to provide research that would describe the evolution of the intentions of social
policies chosen and adopted during these pivotal eras of education reform in the
United States. The study also sought to investigate the intentions and thought
processes of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President Lyndon Baines
Johnson, and President George W. Bush concerning education. The overriding
question of the study was how did the general social values, democratic values, and
economic values of the nation have an effect on the decision making, concerning
education policy and reform, of these three Presidents.
Conducting a policy analysis of the three eras of reform gave this researcher
the opportunity to develop a greater understanding of how societal problems and
possible solutions are considered by elected and non-elected government decision
makers. The study sought to answer the following two overriding questions:
1. Why were Roosevelt’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great Society, and Bush’s
NCLB chosen and not others?
2. What systematic changes have taken place due to enactment of
Roosevelt’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great Society, and Bush’s No Child
Left Behind?
Limitations of the Study
This was a qualitative study, one that was limited to investigating the
Presidential actions during three eras of educational reform by three Presidents of
the United States. The researcher set out to provide descriptions of the evolution of
the intentions of social policies chosen and adopted during these pivotal eras of
education reform in the United States. The study also sought to investigate the
intentions and thought processes concerning education of President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, President Lyndon Baines Johnson, and President George W. Bush. The
overriding question of the study was how the general social values, democratic
values, and economic values of the nation have an effect on the decision making
concerning education policy and reform of these three presidents.
This study has three primary limitations: size, lack of predictability, and bias.
Only three periods of reform were studied. Because this was a small, specific,
targeted group of politicians (Presidents), there needs to be caution in projecting the
findings to other times and other presidents. The researcher took an in-depth look at
three Presidents and was able to break down the information and examine it in
terms of individual cases; however, although in depth there needs to be caution in
applying the insights to seek future developments and trends. It is impossible to
predict what a future President can expect from education. What this study can do
and did do is raise important policy questions about the future of education. Finally,
bias on the part of the researcher a limitation. Even though the researcher worked
to ensure that bias was not part of the study, because she was member of the
education field (teacher, principal, assistant superintendent) during two of the eras
studied, her preconceived notions could most certainly influence interpretations as
well as bringing the perspective of a practicing educator to the analysis.
Findings
The findings are chapter specific and were summarized within chapters four,
five, and six. This section will synthesize the findings to answer the study’s research
questions. The study questions were of two types: major and subsidiary (minor)
questions.
1. Why were Roosevelt’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great Society, and
Bush’s NCLB chosen to address education and schooling?
The historical record shows that the choices made by Presidents Roosevelt,
Johnson, and Bush are not simply about economics and accountability, but also how
the shape and spirit of public will be impacted (Gordon, 1994).
In all three eras, the ideas for the policy agenda that was chosen for dealing
with the problem of education and youth had begun before each of the Presidents
had arrived in the White House. In each case the record is clear that they brought
the ideas for the policy with them. It is also clear, that the ultimate policy formulation
took place in the oval office. Within the three eras of education reform, the decision
making fell into two common categories: “strategies of content and strategies of
approach” (Dietrich, 1994, p. 252). President Roosevelt, President Johnson, and
President Bush had the final say in both categories; however, all three had policy
entrepreneurs who were empowered to create the content of policy. These elites
also were given the authority to use their expertise when working with the strategies
approach category with the full backing of the President.
Each President used two types of approach strategies when forming their
policies. The approaches were preparatory and congressional. The preparation
strategies included empowerment of the elite policy entrepreneurs, building on the
interests of groups of citizens and coalitions for support of the policy, and preshaping
the policy for maximum political acceptance (Dietrich, 1994, p. 253). Congressional
strategies included Presidential campaign speeches while running for office stating
future policies, Presidential speeches to the citizens of the United
States and Congress, and personal interaction with members of Congress. Each
President, along with their handpicked policy elites, devised plans of strategy and
used the resources available to the President to facilitate the implementation
strategies decided upon. The parties involved were knowledgeable, resourceful, and
persistent.
2. What factors influenced the development and adoption of these
policies?
Expertise and the background experience of each president as well as that of their
policy elites influenced the development and adoption of the education reform policy.
Each President brought to the executive office education experiences, political
values, knowledge of the inner workings of the federal government, and social
contacts both inside and outside of government. For example, President Roosevelt
was greatly influenced by the Great Depression. Relief and recovery were the sole
purpose for many of the federal programs he initiated. He was also influenced by his
childhood and his love for the outdoors.
President Johnson brought to the office experiences of teaching, politics,
military service, and poverty. Because President Johnson had been a teacher in a
poor school in Texas and had been a director of the Texas National Youth
Administration, he understood and had great respect for the power education. He
wanted education to become the cornerstone of his Great Society. In his annual
address to Congress in March of 1964, Johnson stated “that education is a good
investment for the child and for the country” (Source, year, p. #). He firmly believed
that equality for all could be achieved through education.
President Bush was a member of the baby boom era that was defined by
abundance in numbers as well as socially, economically, and culturally. As
Roosevelt and Johnson were defined by their upbringings, so was George Bush.
Born into a family with a rich history of political activity, most influential to Bush was
his father’s time in the White House as Vice President and then President of the
United States. President Bush had three major agenda items at the onset of his
presidency: education, a ten year tax-cut, and a foreign policy initiative. Education
reform being his first priority as he confirmed by stating in his inaugural address on
January 20, 200l, “while many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise,
even the justice, of our own country”. He continued by saying “the ambitions of
some Americans are limited by failing schools and hidden prejudice and the
circumstances of their birth” (Bush, G., First Inaugural Address, 2001)
Through the use of inspirational and visionary rhetoric that reflected each
Presidents interpretation of the national mood they were able to bring what was in
the hearts of the American public to the surface and act upon these thoughts.
3. What were the intentions of each?
The intent of the New Deal was relief and recovery. For the two main youth
programs, Civil Conservation Corps and National Youth Administration the focus was
to put unemployed youth to work and to allow for the continuation of their education
either in school or through on the job training. The goal was to offer relief and to
better prepare the youth for socially constructive lives. The original mission of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was to supplement state and local
resources focused on the very disadvantaged by using the carrot and stick
approach. The federal role in K-12 education under No Child Left Behind was
focused on process and compliance rather than on achievement and results using
the same carrot and stick approach; however, under NCLB, federal policy puts states
and districts in a bind when voluntary participation is a federal program is, in effect,
coercive to cash-strapped school districts and states (Ohanian, 1999).
4. How does the era of accountability with No Child Left Behind
compare to the New Deal and Great Society eras economically?
Throughout American history, the federal government has encouraged and
supported education. According to Glass (2009), modern education debates have
been shaped by powerful economic and demographic forces that have been over a
century in the making. Since 1812, when Kalamazoo, Michigan invoked a property
tax to help fund education, states have relied substantially on local property taxes to
fund K-12 education (City of Kalamazoo Assessor's Office, 2008). A survey of the
major education bills and legislation up to and during the Depression years
uncovered the apparent tendency in federal education policymaking: that general
aid bills inevitably failed to become law. However with the addition of unfunded and
underfunded education mandates imposed by federal policymakers hundreds of
billions of dollars have been significantly added to the state and local taxpayers’
burden (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010) increasing the need for
federal dollars.
Before President Johnson came into office, the federal government’s share of
educational spending amounted to about 1%, mostly earmarked for vocational
programs (Reese, 2005). Roosevelt’s funding was offered as relief for the Great
Depression, and support came in the form of indirect subsidies to schools through
the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) programs that were run by
state and local agencies. During the Johnson era, the funding progressed to direct
assistance for programs to meet specific needs. This assistance was again provided
to the states to distribute to schools that qualified for aid. Funds supplied by the
federal government grew steadily from the Johnson era to the Bush era. The Bush
era continued the trend of increasing federal funding. Along with each increase in
funding came more directives and mandates. Anderson observed that the federal
government’s regulatory presence in schools increased as funding increased
(Anderson, 2007).
Roosevelt’s New Deal requested direct federal aid to relief projects. The
intention was for the money to go away when it was no longer needed. President
Roosevelt insisted, “that his administration would do all it could to stay out of the
business of channeling direct federal aid to high school students or their teachers”
(Presidential Press Conference, 1934, p. 202). The terms supplement and supplant
were used when defining how federal aid would be spent on the various New Deal
Programs. President Roosevelt wanted to supplement the youth through Civil
Conservation Corps (CCC) and National Youth Administration (NYA) programs by
providing the training and skills both the young people and the existing economy
demanded, not supplant the role of public education. The original appropriation for
the NYA was $4,880,000 (United States. National Youth Administration, 1937, p. 1)
and was distributed to state and local agencies for control and disbursement.
President Johnson made federal aid for education a fundamental issue during
his 1964 presidential campaign. In turning to the schools to help solve the problem
of the mid-twentieth century poverty issues, President Johnson and his planners
continued the tradition and belief in the powers of education. During President
Johnson’s era, Title I provided money but it was in the form of general aid. It was
considered categorical funding aimed at remedial and supplementary services for
poor children. The restrictions placed on the aid were that assistance be given to
those schools that enrolled the largest number of poverty children, based on the
theory that poverty and low scholastic achievement are closely related. Careful to
safeguard the state and local districts’ traditional authority over education, the
guidelines did not indicate how students were to be served. The original
appropriation for education was $8 billion dollars, with $1 billion dollars going to
elementary and secondary students for supplementary strategies such as tutoring,
after-school programs, and resources for students (Unger & Unger, 1999).
The 2000 presidential campaign affirmed President Bush intentions to expand
the federal role in education. He built upon the Improving America’s School Act,
President Clinton’s version of the reauthorization of ESEA (Robelen, 2000). Bush
felt that Title I needed reforming by increasing accountability through the use of
standards and assessment. His position was based on providing quality schools and
liberalism. President Bush’s version of ESEA, known as No Child Left Behind,
required equal treatment of all students and that the same standards and
accountability were used for all students. NCLB was governed by a complicated mix
of federal mandates and state discretions. The mandates required the states
develop standards and tests to ensure student achievement. States were to create
a system for dealing with failing schools and the states set the rigor for these
themselves (Heiss & McGuinn, 2009). Bush campaigned for $13.5 billion dollars to
be given to education during the first year of No Child Left Behind, with $1 billion to
be given to a compensatory reading program (Kosar, 2003; Felix, 2002)
5. What systematic changes have taken place due to enactment of
Roosevelt’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great society, and Bush’s NCLB?
Through the use of policy analysis the perspective of systematic changes due
to the enactment of Roosevelt’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great society, and Bush’s No
Child Left Behind policies were viewed through the each President’s point of view
using Odden’s Policy Analysis Instrument to categorize the policies of all three eras
of time (See Table 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3). The categories of the policy instrument used
were constructed from two main sources: existing theories about the effects of
governmental action and observed patterns in the choice of policymakers. The
categories used to determine the systematic changes during each time period
consist of mandates, inducements, capacity-building, and system-changing. The
categories determined the effect of federal expansion in the educational system.
Mandates draw on the theories of regulation which address the conditions under
which the targets of regulation can be expected to comply given various levels of
enforcement, sanctions, and costs and benefits of compliance. Inducement draws
on theories of public finance that deal with intergovernmental transfers. These
theories address the conditions under which government agencies can be induced to
perform certain actions by conditional grants of funds from other governmental
agencies. Capacity building involves the conditional transfer of funds from one
governmental agency to another and introduces the additional element of investment
in uncertain future benefits. System-changing entails transfers of authority rather
than money, with the aim of altering the institutional structures by which policies are
implemented (Odden A. R., 1991, p. 162).
Federal involvement in education. As the federal government has
appropriated more monetary resources and leveraged funds to state education
agencies in the form of federal aid through the use of mandates, the quantity and
quality of data collected for federal program regulation has grown. It started with
general education relief, but has progressed to mandated core curriculum areas for
which federal aid can be used. This progression has led to the transfer of authority
from traditional local control to federal control of public education with a reliance on
the State Departments to administer the federal funds to the Local Education
Agencies. The State and Local Education Agencies are then to design and
implement compensatory education programs.
Grant money. As federal became tied to national policy concerns such as
poverty, defense, or economic growth categorical funding became the means of
ensuring that the children and schools most in need of assistance received the help.
By targeting these funds on special populations and controlling the use of these
funds through federal regulations ensured compliance by the state and local
education authorities. As the leveraged funding increased so did the expectations
for student achievement and academic growth which allowed for the emergence of
new providers of education services.
Business changes. Education policy and decision-making systems align with
the needs of the community that provides the financing (Armstrong, 2008). As we
began to shift from the agriculture age to the industrial age and then to the
information age, business leaders’ interest in education increased. The resources
provided by these leaders of business to education began to provide incremental
improvements and break-through innovations used in education. As these leaders
became more instrumental and more influential in education issues and policy
making, they demanded better quality of students by demanding a more rigorous
curriculum, more testing, and more accountability.
Presidential elections. Education now ranks equal to national defense
among domestic interests. Since President Johnson made education one of his top
campaign issues, all Presidents who followed have declared some form of education
policy by stating their intentions to reform education. President Johnson promoted
the use of education as the focal point for advancing his Great Society agenda and
in particular, his War on Poverty programs. “The 2000 presidential rhetorical
campaign affirmed the new direction that federal education politics and policy, with
respect to education standards and Title I, was going to take” (Kosar, 2003, p. 461).
Then, Governor Bush ran as the compassionate conservative leader (Hatfield, 2002;
McClosky, 2006; McClellan, 2008; Baker, 2009). He campaigned in favor of the
expansion of the federal role in education through standards and accountability. His
position, which resonated with voters, was a mix of quality school advocacy and
liberalism (Robelen, Bush leading Republicans in new direction, 2000). Since the
1970’s each President has in some way attempted to reinvent the federal
government’s role in public education each subsequent reinvention has resulted in
expanded federal influence and extended federal authority.
6. What were intended consequences and unintended consequences of
the New Deal, Great Society, and No Child Left Behind?
The basic intended consequence of the New Deal, the Great Society, and No Child
Left Behind was to strengthen programs and provide additional resources for poor
children. Poverty in the United States has had a tremendous impact on education
reform as efforts have been taken to ensure that all individuals have access to
education not matter what their socioeconomic status might be.
However, one of the major consequences has been that the United States still
maintains a culture “where the people with the strongest self-interest in education
reform - that is low-income parents of color whose children attend public urban
schools - find themselves missing at the table… The failure of our urban schools
represents a systematic question of social injustices and reflects the lack of power of
low-income communities of color” (Anyon, 1997, p. 96).
7. What incremental changes were experienced because of the
intended and unintended consequences?
Major changes experienced, across the combined eras has been a geometric
increase in litigation. As the federal government imposed more regulations and
required more reporting from state and local education agencies, education litigation
has increased. For the first half of the 20th Century, federal court cases related to
elementary and secondary education were rare events. There were only a handful
of court decisions issued before 1954. In the second half of the 20th Century there
was a geometric increase in the number of cases in the federal and state court
systems. The index of the 2004 Survey of Public School Law, however, uses 500
pages to list all the education related issues that have been or are being litigated,
including approximately 300 U.S. Supreme Court cases that have been decided
(Cambron McCabe, McCarty, & Thomas, 2004).
Claims about the inability of courts to achieve social change disregard the
many methods used by the federal courts to increase their enforcement power.
During Roosevelt’s era, there were two cases that significantly affected education.
After Roosevelt, several more were litigated, with the most notable one being Brown
vs. the Board of Topeka, Kansas (1954). Since then, court cases have grown in
number and stature, often with the assistance from congress and the executive
office. At the same time, examination of why courts felt compelled to expand their
remedial powers reminds us of the inherent difficulty of the many tasks they have
undertaken and the concomitant danger of producing serious unintended
consequences (Dunn & West, 2009).
8. What is the cause for disconnect between the making of policy and
the implementation of the policy by school leaders?
Education reform does not happen overnight, but over a period of time, thereby
allowing for a disconnect to occur between the making of policy and the
implementation of the policy by school leaders. During the reform stages, costs of
changes, negotiations, insecurities, hard feelings, and so-on must also be
considered when bringing in new policies. Such costs must be counted against any
change. When these cost are not accounted for when dealing with school leaders
and teachers while adopting the policies and bringing them to life in practice a
disconnect among the players and policy enactment will occur.
It is incredibly difficult to make something happen, most especially across the
many layers of government and institutions involved in education. Social issues tend
to be even thornier. The main reason for the difficulty is because policymakers
cannot mandate what matters most to a person, community, or system. Policy
success depends critically on two broad factors:
Local capacity and will of the people. Capacity can be addressed in the
policy. Training can be offered. Dollars provided. Consultants hired. All of
which can support intended consequences. Alternatively, if institutions and
people are forever being reformed and reinvented and remodeled-as occurs
in many public school systems-there may be benefits to stability, consistency
and focus. The will, attitudes, motivation, values, and beliefs of the people
underlie the implementer’s response to a policy’s goals or strategies.
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010).
The historical record shows that the choices made for education policy are not
simply about economics and accountability, but rather that the shape and spirit of
public provision matter very much to its impact (Gordon, 1994).
Theoretical Implication
Today, as well as in the past, what we expect from our schools and what we
consider a good education reflects the political climate of the times. We, as a
country, tend to hold similar expectations for our leaders, especially the President of
the United States. American public schools have been expected to fulfill certain
public missions that go beyond the purely academic purposes of all schools, both
public and private. These public missions can be characterized by six main themes:
To provide universal access to free education,
To guarantee equal opportunities for all children,
To unify a diverse population,
To prepare people for citizenship in a democratic society,
To prepare people to become economically self-sufficient, and
To improve social conditions (Kober, 1996).
Most of these missions go back to the early days of public education, although the
specific goals and means of accomplishing them have changed over time. Some of
them are unique to public school, while others apply broadly to both public and
private schools but place special demands on public schools (Kober, 1996). In order
to improve education in today’s society we must consider the necessity of leveling
the playing field as well as the importance of the knowledge, understanding, and
awareness of all stakeholders.
Level the playing field. Over time, one major theme of American education,
especially in the three eras of this study, has been that the system tries to level the
playing field for all children to receive a quality education, but they have yet to
succeed. It is not for lack of trying - solutions continue to abound from all directions.
Unfortunately, many of the solutions are misdirected investments, such as the
current use of testing (assessing) American students three or four times per year.
Education policy and decision-making systems often align with the needs of
the community that provides the financing (Armstrong, 2008). The business of
education has become a multi-billion dollar business. Testing companies lead the
way in terms of lobbying for more accountability among American students, providing
test preparation materials that are used more often than the assigned textbook, and
software for computer-based programs to assist struggling students to gain
proficiency of standardized tests.
Knowledge, understanding, and awareness. Effective action within each
stakeholder’s role requires knowledge, understanding, and awareness of the policy
environment. The existing players in the policy making sector have resources,
processes, partners, and business models designed to support the status quo. This
makes it difficult and unappealing for stakeholders to challenge the prevalent way of
thinking or create an environment of exchange relationships between the players
and the actors (Meltsner & Bellavita, 1983).
Policy Implication
Social policy is one of the largest portions of public policy at the national level.
“Over the last century, its growth has been meteoric and can be traced back to
dramatic social and historical events, changes in our views of what government
ought to do, and the evolution of social values” (Simon, 2010, p. 219). The intent of
much of the social policy especially with education has had the intention of serving
children and communities that have been more at risk. Development of public policy
as well as agreeing on the issues that government ought or ought not to do; Does or
does not do in a democratic state takes time. Stakeholder attention can wax and
wane across the time it takes to develop and implement particular policy agenda.
For better or worse, stakeholders must remain ever vigilant of policy bias in an
attempt to create what is collectively deemed to be acceptable social conditions
(Simon, 2010, p. 219).
Recommendation for Future Research
As stated at the beginning of this study, our faith in public schools as the great
equalizer remains (Meir, Kohn, Darling-Hammond, Sizer, & Wood, 2004). Over the
years the hopes and efforts to affect change in education have been echoed in the
discussion, indictments, and failings about change in schools. Some argue that
education has not changed much from 1930 to the present. Others argue that
education has changed considerably. Further research in the area of Catalytic
Innovation (Christensen, 2006) in education is needed as we move from the age of
the knowledge worker to that of the high concept/high touch age (Pink D. , 2005).
This raises the question of how does the president approach the problem of
transitioning from the knowledge age to the cognitive high concept/high touch in a
fundamentally new way that creates a scalable, sustainable, systems-changing
solution that will improve education?
Defining the skills for the future by using the definition from the
Information age concerning knowledge workers (the well-educated
manipulator of information and deployed of expertise) is still necessary
but is no longer sufficient to help determine the skills needed by our
students for the future. We will now need to incorporate the
capabilities we once disdained or thought to be frivolous and not
worthy right-brain qualities of inventiveness, empathy, joyfulness, and
meaning. Increasingly, we will determine who flourishes and who
flounders by who is best able to incorporate skills from the left brain
and the right brain. For government organizations and education, this
will require a whole new mind to be successful in the future (Pink D. ,
2005, p. 2).
Another area of research needed within the education setting concerns the
trend toward a disjointed education model. Increasingly, Kindergarten through
postsecondary education is becoming more blended due to the offering of products
and services that are perceived to be simpler, less regulated, and less costly than
the existing alternatives. They may be known to have a lower level of performance,
but users consider them to be good enough. Examples include virtual academies,
charter schools, and for-profit schools (secondary schools, post-secondary schools,
and graduate schools that allow students to take classes from venues that are not
traditional public schools).
In the new context of international competition, when formulating new
educational reforms perhaps the President and his education elite should ask, what
will be the impact of this blended education system have on the international,
federal, state and local levels? What outcomes does the federal government or our
society expect from these services? What will the funding look like if education
continues on this blended path? Will these services eventually put public education
as we know it out of business? What will be the opportunity costs?
Another important area for future research needed concerns the concept of
the permanent campaign (Ornstein & Mann, 2000). Today’s incumbents are
continually campaigning for reelection. Research is needed on the effects that this
practice will have on future education policies. According to Professor Hugh Heclo,
the permanent campaign in modern politics has turned into the nonstop process of
seeking to manipulate sources of public approval to engage in the act of governing
itself (Ornstein & Mann, 2000). If the leader of the country is continually
campaigning for office, will any policy, not just education policy, be allowed the time
needed to ensure buy-in from the citizens and have the time and support for
implementation that is needed to truly bring about reform? Much of the research
would need to focus on looking toward the future for answers rather than looking at
the past. The past is just that, and soon it “should be so strange that we wonder how
we and the people we know and love came from such a time” (White, 1993, p.
13).
Summary and Conclusion
Legally and traditionally, elementary and secondary education has been
defined broadly by state constitutions; specified by state statutes; and implemented
by state agencies, school boards, and local school districts. Before the 1950s
federal involvement in education was modest in resources and limited in scope.
Since then there has been dramatic increases in federal involvement through the
levers of funding and regulation. One theme that has continued is, targeting
underserved populations with the expectation of raising student achievement for
disabled and economically disadvantaged students (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2010). The phrase an idea whose time has come captures a
fundamental reality about an irresistible education movement that sweeps over our
politics and our society, pushing aside everything that might stand in its path. As the
federal government, with the backing of the executive office, increased education
policy in domestic stature, alongside national defense as one of the overriding
concerns of the federal government, it is easy to become involved in sweeping
educational movement such as ending poverty. Of course, federal aid to education
did not end poverty in the United States. Nor did it prove to be the only escape route
for children born in inner city ghettos. What federal expansion did do was create an
attitude of conflict and confusion towards education.
Where is the federal role likely to head in education policy and governance?
“Every indication is that it will become much more significant in the area of shaping
policies and practices through several leverage points it can exercise over states
and local school districts” (Conley D. , 2003, p. 6). Since the 1970’s each President
has in some way attempted to reinvent the federal government’s role in education.
Each subsequent reinvention has resulted in expanded federal influence and
extended federal authority through the increased quantity and quality of data
required by schools to collect, interpret, and share; Narrowing of the curriculum
being taught; Increased dropout rates among students; Schools unable to meet the
set benchmarks thereby being labeled as an inadequate school.
Fearful of a perceived wolf at the door, the citizens of the United States
voluntarily surrendered their local control of education. They surrendered their
beliefs that a thoughtful, balanced public education for all children is important. The
fear Americans felt toward education was understandable, as every President since
Roosevelt has repeatedly warned the citizens that education is in crisis. When
events or rhetoric challenge our view of the world, we naturally long for some way to
improve order; therefore, Presidents and politicians need to be wary of sweeping
