Discussion 5
K-12 Education System
a. K-12
When people refer to “public education,” they are usually referring to
kindergarten through 12th grade. There are a few good reasons for this. First, unlike
early childhood education or college, state laws make K–12 schooling mandatory for
all children in the U.S. 1 Second, with 13 grade levels, it forms the core of the
educational pipeline. There are almost 50 million students in K–12 public schools and
another 5 million in private schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014).
From the time of the rural one-room schoolhouses to the present, with sprawling
suburban high schools, there has been a constant push by the public and policymakers
to increase the quality of K–12 education. At times, this took the form of increasing
access to schooling such as for rural students, women, immigrants, and minority
students. Other times, the push for greater quality centered on more rigorous learning
standards and student expectations. The overall goal is to ensure equity and excellence
for all students. This becomes increasingly difficult as the population grows and
becomes more diverse.
Greater numbers of students and employees, more variety in student needs,
and higher expectations for public schools create complex organizational and political
issues that are not as easily solved as some leaders and pundits would have us believe.
The current student population provides a good picture of the variety of student needs
facing American public schools. In 2001, 38.3% of public school students qualified
for the federal free/reduced-price meals program. This program is based on family
income. So, a family of four with an annual income of $31,005 in 2014–15 would
qualify for free meals, and a family of four with an income of $44,123 would qualify
for reduced-price meals. In 2013, the percentage of students qualifying for this
program rose to over 50% for the first time, an increase of over 10 percentage points
in just 10 years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). These numbers vary
widely by state; New Hampshire has only 27% of students qualifying for the program,
while Mississippi has almost 72% of students qualifying for free or reduced-price
meals (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). Student needs are also
manifested in other ways. About 9% of U.S. public school students participate in
programs for English language learners. Again, this also varies widely by state, with
California having about 23% of students requiring such services and West Virginia
having less than 1% of students requiring the same (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2015). Finally, about 13% of U.S. public school students require services
under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The variance in figures regarding the percentage of children identified as
having disabilities, particularly between states such as Massachusetts and Texas,
raises intriguing questions about the underlying factors contributing to these
disparities. While the figures may not vary as widely across states overall, the
presence of outliers like Massachusetts and Texas highlights the importance of
examining the nuances of student identification procedures and their potential impact
on reported population numbers.
One potential explanation for the variance in figures is differences in the
stringency or consistency of student identification procedures across states. Each state
establishes its own criteria and processes for identifying children with disabilities,
often guided by federal laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). Variations in these procedures, including the thresholds for eligibility, the use
of assessment tools, and the involvement of multidisciplinary teams in the evaluation
process, can influence the likelihood of children being identified as having
disabilities.
In some cases, states may adopt more inclusive or expansive criteria for
identifying children with disabilities, leading to higher reported percentages of
students with disabilities. Conversely, other states may have more stringent or
restrictive criteria, resulting in lower reported percentages. Additionally, differences in
the availability and accessibility of early intervention services, diagnostic resources,
and support systems within communities may also contribute to variations in
identification rates across states.
Furthermore, cultural and socioeconomic factors may play a role in shaping
student identification procedures and outcomes. For example, disparities in access to
healthcare, early childhood education, and support services may impact the early
detection and intervention for children with disabilities, influencing their likelihood of
being formally identified within the education system. Similarly, cultural beliefs,
attitudes, and stigma surrounding disability may influence parental perceptions and
decisions regarding seeking assessment and support for their children.
It's also important to consider the potential impact of systemic inequities and
biases within the education system on student identification processes. Research has
highlighted disparities in the identification rates of students from marginalized or
historically underserved groups, such as students of color, English language learners,
and students from low-income families. These disparities may reflect systemic
barriers to access and equity, including unequal access to resources, differential
treatment by educators, and implicit biases in assessment and decision-making
processes.
Addressing the variance in student identification rates across states requires a
multifaceted approach that considers the complex interplay of factors at the
individual, community, and systemic levels. This may involve efforts to standardize
and improve the consistency of student identification procedures, increase access to
early intervention and support services, promote cultural competence and
responsiveness among educators and service providers, and address systemic
inequities and biases within the education system.
By examining the factors contributing to variations in student identification
rates and implementing targeted interventions to promote equity and inclusivity, states
can ensure that all children have access to the supports and services they need to
thrive academically, socially, and emotionally, regardless of their backgrounds or
circumstances.
The complexity of K–12 education is magnified by the transparency of student
performance, given more sophisticated state and local data systems. Student academic
achievement can be parsed by racial, ethnic, gender, socioeconomic, or other
subgroups. Sophisticated formulas allow statisticians to estimate student learning
growth year to year and can calculate a teacher’s effect on student learning. States
compete with each other in the economic development arena based on the strength of
education performance. Data have become important, if not king. And the data usually
tell a bleak story. In 2013, just over 80% of high school students graduated
(GradNation, 2015). This percentage is rising, but it needs to continue to grow to meet
state and national attainment goals. A closer examination of the data reveals gaps
between various groups of students. For instance, the graduation rate for low-income
students was 15 percentage points less than that of middleand high-income students.
Notably, the gap between Kentucky’s low-income students and other students was
only 1.4 percentage points.
The disparities in graduation rates among racial subgroups, as well as between
students with and without disabilities, underscore the persistent challenges and
inequities within the education system that disproportionately affect marginalized and
historically underserved groups. While the overall graduation rates may appear
relatively high, closer examination reveals significant gaps in outcomes that warrant
attention and targeted interventions to promote equity and inclusivity.
The disparities in graduation rates among racial subgroups reflect
longstanding inequities in access to educational opportunities, resources, and support
systems. Hispanic/Latino and African American students, as well as other students of
color, often face systemic barriers such as poverty, inadequate school funding, limited
access to advanced coursework, disproportionate disciplinary practices, and cultural
biases in teaching and assessment. These factors contribute to lower graduation rates
and hinder their ability to achieve academic success and socioeconomic mobility.
Similarly, the disparities in graduation rates between students with and without
disabilities highlight the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in accessing
and completing their education. Students with disabilities may encounter barriers
related to access to appropriate accommodations and support services, inadequate
instructional and behavioral interventions, insufficient transition planning, and
negative attitudes and stigma surrounding disability. These barriers can impede their
academic progress, social integration, and post-secondary outcomes, leading to lower
graduation rates and diminished opportunities for success.
Additionally, fostering a culture of equity, diversity, and inclusion within
schools and districts is essential for creating supportive and affirming learning
environments where all students feel valued, respected, and empowered to achieve
their full potential. By prioritizing equity and inclusivity in education policy, practice,
and decision-making, we can work towards closing the graduation gaps and ensuring
that every student has the opportunity to thrive and succeed, regardless of their race,
ethnicity, disability status, or background.
Leading up to high school graduation, performance on nationally normed tests
is very low. Standardized testing and sophisticated data systems now allow us to
compare student progress across districts, states, and countries. Only 34% of fourth
grade public school students score “proficient” in reading and/or math on the National
Assessment of Education Performance, a test that is administered to students across
the nation by the U.S. Department of Education (Education Week Research Center,
2014a). U.S. performance compared to international countries is not any better.
According to the latest international tests given to students across several countries,
American students are faring poorly. U.S. students place ninth of 42 countries in
eighthgrade tests in math and tenth place in eighth-grade science tests. In high school,
U.S. students place 17th of 34 economically developed countries in reading literacy,
27th in mathematics, and 20th in science.
The structure of K–12 schooling varies from district to district and state to
state. For example, about 4%, or 3,700 public schools, offer a year-round schedule
rather than providing the traditional two-month summer break (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2014). Often, year-round schools do not offer more instructional
days, but rather space out breaks throughout the year. States also have different
policies on the number of instructional days and hours required of students. These
vary by level of education, as most elementary schools operate fewer hours than
secondary schools. Colorado requires the fewest number of days at 160, whereas
Kansas requires the most at 186. When examining instructional hours, however,
Colorado requires more hours than many other states. Arizona requires the fewest
total annual hours at the high school level (720), and Wisconsin requires the most
(1,137).
Clearly, the landscape of K–12 education is complex. The purpose of this is to
provide an overview of the existing state of K–12 policy along with emerging issues
in order to provide the reader with a base from which to extend research and/or
reflective thought. Unlike other treatments of this topic, does not aim to solve the
problems surrounding K–12 education, but instead to provide a clear picture of the
landscape to help those who are trying to solve those problems.
b. Governance
Education is the sole province of states, as it is not covered in the U.S.
Constitution. However, that does not prevent the federal government from exercising
influence over K–12 education through regulations tied to funding. Further, local
school districts within states maintain primary responsibility for providing education
services to students through authority delegated from the states. The interplay
between federal, state, and local education governance has evolved over time, and
while will describe the basic legal structure, which has not changed much over time, it
will also highlight how the balance of power has shifted among these entities.
There are other ways to conceptualize education governance beyond
federalism. These include the nature of control (e.g., public versus private), the degree
of centralization, and the placement of education policy issues on larger policy
agendas. Jeffrey Henig (2013), a professor of education politics at Columbia
University, describes an interesting trend in the evolution of education governance.
He suggests that education is moving from single-purpose governance to general-
purpose governance. Single-purpose governance is characterized by decision making
and policymaking by specialized boards (e.g., local public school boards) and interest
groups, while general-purpose governance includes education among a panoply of
topics on the agendas of mayors, governors, and presidents and activity from
nontraditional education interest groups. Henig (2013) believes the “special status [of
education] has been eroding, and that we are witnessing the gradual reabsorption of
educational decision making into multilevel, general-purpose government and
politics” (p. 3). This may explain why the U.S. is seeing so many more mayors,
governors, and presidents becoming heavily involved in education policy.
There are 130,000 public schools in the U.S. governed by 13,500 school
districts. While the number of schools has remained relatively stable, the number of
school districts has drastically decreased over time. In 1940, there were over 100,000
school districts (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). This trend represents
an emphasis on efficiency as fewer school districts govern more schools. Still, some
states such as Texas (1,043 local school boards) and Illinois (892 local school boards)
boast numerous local boards (Education Commission of the States, 2014). Not only
has the number of school districts decreased, but also the type of district has
drastically changed over the past several years. As of 2011, only 73% of all school
districts were “traditional.” The other 27% were made up largely of charter school
local education agencies, regional agencies, and other types of configurations.
This is a lengthy and sophisticated list for the average community citizen
elected to the school board, who may or may not have any education and/ or
leadership experience. Although the scope of these tasks may change depending on
the size or location of the school district, the fundamental responsibilities do not.
Therefore, basic levels of knowledge, leadership skills, and integrity are important
whether a school board member sits in rural North Dakota or urban Philadelphia. The
National School Boards Association and various other organizations expend a good
deal of effort working to make school boards more “effective.” Certainly, school
boards are the first place for the buck to stop when there are significant achievement
or other problems across a school district. Recently, it appears that in some places
public satisfaction with the work of school boards has reached such low levels that
control over district schools has eroded. For example, many cities have ceded all or
some control over schools to mayors “by giving them greater power in selecting
superintendents, selecting school boards, authorizing charter schools, determining the
budget, or all of the above” (Henig, 2013, p. 59). Power was once before in the hands
of city leaders, but around the turn of the 20th century, in an effort to depoliticize
education, power was instilled in specific-purpose local boards (Henig, 2013). As we
move back to greater mayoral and gubernatorial control—as will be discussed further
—it seems that perhaps education cannot be depoliticized, and if politicians are going
to be held accountable for educational outcomes, they also want some control over
them.
Beyond potential public dissatisfaction with local school boards, accreditation
agencies seem to be holding local school boards more accountable and are suspending
school district accreditation based on poor performance. For example, in just the past
few years, AdvancED, parent company of several regional accreditors, placed three
Atlanta metro area school boards (Atlanta Public Schools, Clayton County Public
Schools, and Dekalb County Public Schools) on probation for governance issues.
The state’s governor, a state board of education, and a chief state school
executive usually carry out state governance of K–12 education. There are a few
general configurations of power-sharing among these leaders that vary by whether the
governor appoints the chief state school executive and/or the state board (Scudella,
2013). The most popular configuration (14 states) is where the elected governor
appoints the state board of education who, in turn, appoints the chief state school
executive. Nine states utilize a model where the governor appoints the state board of
education and the chief state school executive is elected. Seven states elect both the
governor and state board of education, who then appoints the chief state school
executive. In 11 states, the governor appoints both the state board and the chief state
school executive. Only two states (Minnesota and Wisconsin) operate without a state
board of education. Other configurations include a mixed elected/appointed state
board and involvement by the legislature in appointing state board members
(Scudella, 2013).
The responsibilities and influence of each entity vary by state depending on
political context, policy context, history, and individual personalities. However, there
are general definitions of what each should do. “In general, most state boards have six
legal powers in common. They: (1) establish certification standards for teachers and
administrators, (2) establish high school graduation requirements, (3) establish state
testing programs, (4) establish standards for accreditation of school districts and
teacher and administrator preparation programs, (5) review and approve the budget of
the state education agency, and (6) develop rules and regulations for the
administration of state programs” (Education Commission of the States, 2015).
State boards of education became popular among states in the 1940s and
1950s as a mechanism to help insulate education from partisan politics, provide for
greater citizen representation, allow for greater continuity in educational policy, and
protect against abuses of power (Henig, 2013). Some states may assign some of these
duties to other boards or agencies. For example, Georgia entrusts the Professional
Standards Commission, an agency separate from the state department of education, to
establish teacher and leader certification standards and establish standards for
accreditation of teacher and administrator preparation programs.
Chief state school executives “are responsible for the general supervision of
the state’s public education system . . . [they lead] the state education agency and
direct activities of the agency’s professional staff in regulating and supporting the
state’s public schools” (Education Commission of the States, 2014). Although most of
these individuals report to the state board of education, they must also work with
governors, legislatures, and other agency leaders to accomplish their goals. This
becomes a more difficult job when the chief state school executive is elected, because
he/she then has an individual platform and campaign promises to deliver upon. In the
14 states where the chief state school executive is elected, governors may set up
separate agencies or offices to carry out educational programs if the governor and
chief state school executive do not share agendas.
Arguably, the governors’ role in education is increasing based on a confluence
of several contemporary factors, including increased state accountability from federal
programs (e.g., No Child Left Behind legislation of 2001), mounting public
dissatisfaction with education and assignment of responsibility to governors, and the
trending gubernatorial view of education as an economic development tool. Henig
(2013) argues that gubernatorial power over education has been increasing for several
decades and that the rise of “education governors” started in the 1950s and escalated
after 1995; notably, from 1995 to 2009, 60% of governors’ biographies on the
National Governors Association website mentioned a substantive K–12 interest.
Shober (2012) also believes that gubernatorial interest in and influence over education
are increasing, particularly from a fiscal angle. Given that K–12 education is such a
large part, if not the largest part, of the state’s budget, “the financial pressures of the
last decade have made state education budgets the cornerstone of state budget politics,
and thus a problem no governor can avoid” (Shober, 2012, p. 560). Yet, it is important
to note that the power and influence of the governor also varies by state depending on
“whether the governor’s party controls the legislature, how strong the governor is
within his or her own party, the professionalism of the legislature, the existence and
mobilization of supporting interest groups, and the ambition of the governor’s
objectives”.
As noted previously, the federal government has no constitutional role
regarding the education of the nation’s citizens; however, it has an increasingly
growing influence on education policy. This is likely the result of several factors. One
is the president’s use of the bully pulpit to advocate for increased education quality.
Mentions of education in state of the union speeches and inclusion of education in the
federal budget are now considered typical presidential policy activities. Second,
federal and state leaders seem to generally agree on the need for increased educational
rigor and achievement. While there may not be total agreement on ways to achieve
this, state leaders can see the benefits in allowing the federal government to support
their work. The third factor is the ability of the federal government to leverage
funding for specific policies and performance in furtherance of presidents’ aims. This
is not unique to President Obama, although it could be argued that federal leverage
has significantly increased during his terms in office. Whether federal government
activity in K–12 education is an overreach, unconstitutional, and/or supportive of state
aims is beyond the scope of this book and is treated quite frequently by other policy
observers. Therefore, will focus on how the federal government is currently affecting
education governance rather than passing a judgment on its actions.
The observation regarding the absence of a cohesive national education policy
in the United States highlights the complexity and evolution of federal education
governance over the decades. While the President plays a central role in shaping
federal education policy through the establishment of priorities, budget allocations,
and directives to agencies, the decentralized nature of the American education system,
coupled with the accumulation of laws, regulations, and incentives over time, has
resulted in a fragmented and multifaceted landscape of education governance.
At the heart of this complexity is the tension between federalism and local
control in education, which has long been a defining feature of the American
education system. While the federal government plays a significant role in providing
funding, setting broad policy goals, and enforcing civil rights protections, the day-to-
day operation and administration of schools are primarily the responsibility of state
and local governments. This division of authority has led to a diverse array of
approaches, priorities, and practices across states and districts, reflecting the unique
needs, values, and priorities of local communities.
The accumulation of federal laws, executive branch policy decisions,
regulations, and incentives since the enactment of the National Defense Education Act
in 1958 has further complicated the education policy landscape. Over the years,
Congress has passed numerous pieces of legislation addressing various aspects of
education, including funding formulas, standards and accountability measures, special
education services, civil rights protections, and workforce development initiatives.
Additionally, executive branch agencies have issued regulations, guidance documents,
and grant programs to implement and enforce federal education laws, often shaping
the implementation of policy at the state and local levels.
As a result, the current state of federal education policy can be characterized
as a "hodgepodge" of overlapping laws, regulations, and initiatives that have
accumulated over time, sometimes with inconsistent or conflicting goals and
priorities. While some efforts have been made to streamline and coordinate federal
education policy, such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, which
replaced the No Child Left Behind Act, the underlying complexity and
decentralization of the education system present ongoing challenges for policymakers,
educators, and stakeholders.
Moreover, the absence of a cohesive national education policy does not mean
that the federal government lacks influence or impact on education outcomes. Federal
funding, regulatory authority, research and data collection efforts, and the power of
the bully pulpit all contribute to shaping the direction and priorities of education
policy at the national, state, and local levels. However, the diverse and decentralized
nature of education governance in the United States necessitates a collaborative and
adaptive approach that recognizes the importance of flexibility, innovation, and local
autonomy in addressing the complex challenges facing the education system.
Moving forward, efforts to improve education policy and practice in the
United States will require ongoing dialogue, collaboration, and coordination among
federal, state, and local stakeholders, as well as a commitment to equity, excellence,
and continuous improvement for all students. By leveraging the strengths of our
federalist system while also addressing the limitations and inconsistencies inherent in
the current policy landscape, we can work towards a more coherent, effective, and
equitable education system that prepares all students for success in the 21st century.
Still, that hodgepodge of policies seems to be based on similar themes,
particularly the need for greater equity and excellence in education. In fact, Cross
(2014) argues that federal activity in education has been “instrumental in bringing
attention to groups of students who were being left in the shadows in many states and
communities” (p. 169), including ethnic and racial minority students, English
language learners, and students with disabilities. Certainly, President George W.
Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 focused on ensuring that all
subgroups of students (including those mentioned) were proficient in reading and
math.
President Obama is continuing the emphasis on “all” students through
exhortations to collect and disaggregate student achievement data while
simultaneously urging increased quality in learning standards, education
professionals, and achievement. His most notable policy/program is the RTTT
competitive grant program authorized as part of 2009’s American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. Initially, the program offered grants to states to shape K–12
education, but then ancillary RTTT programs offered grants to school districts and for
state early childhood learning programs. Application for RTTT funding was
completely voluntary, but it came at a time when states found themselves strapped for
cash. Perhaps that was the reason 40 states and the District of Columbia applied for a
part of the $4 billion in funding, or perhaps the requirements of the grant proposal
lined up with what the majority of states were already doing or planned to do. Either
way, the requirements for states seeking funding were significant and have permeated
other presidential initiatives since 2009.
Eighteen states were awarded funding and are still involved in some phase of
implementation, so the efficacy of RTTT in meeting the president’s and states’ goals is
still undetermined. However, several states have been finding difficulty in developing
and implementing new teacher evaluation systems, and there has been some
backpedaling on implementation of new standards and assessments, as will be
discussed later. So, while some argue that RTTT has “arguably become the most
visible and celebrated school reform effort in American history” (Henig, 2013, p. 57,
quoting Frederick Hess), its overall impact is unclear.
Another major avenue for federal impact on K–12 education is through the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) initially proposed and signed by
President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 as part of his Great Society programs.
Traditionally, this program focused on providing school funding to serve low-income
students. This remains part of the current iteration of the legislation, the No Child Left
Behind Act, but it was substantially expanded to affect most aspects of K–12
education. No Child Left Behind was the most recent reauthorization of ESEA. The
act was due for reauthorization in 2007, but presidents (both Bush and Obama) and
Congress have not been able to come to an agreement on a new version. As NCLB
stands now, states must collect and disaggregate student achievement data on
standardized tests each year. This data is then used for accountability purposes at
school, district, and state levels. Failure to meet adequate yearly progress goals can
result in sanctions that range from opening school choice options to students to loss of
federal funding. The ultimate goal of NCLB was for all students to reach
“proficiency” (as defined by the state) in reading and math by 2014. As 2014 neared
and states still struggled to meet proficiency goals, the Obama administration
provided relief with strings attached. In 2012, states had the option to apply to the
U.S. Department of Education for waivers from provisions of the NCLB Act.
Requirements for obtaining a waiver are listed in detail below, as they are a good
window into the Obama administration’s stance on K–12 education policy and its
potential negotiations on ESEA reauthorization.
Forty-one states and the District of Columbia earned waivers which expire in
2015 and the U.S. Secretary of Education is currently considering waiver extensions
through the 2017–18 school year. Conditions for these waivers are similar to those
offered in 2012, but they include updates on state progress thus far under the existing
waiver (U.S. Department of Education, 2014a). The Council of Chief State School
Officers received this news favorably, and at least one teacher union group, the
American Federation of Teachers (AFT), did not.
The unexpected alliance between the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
and House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) in
response to the waiver extension reflects the complexity and contentious nature of
education policy debates in the United States. While the AFT and Chairman Kline
may come from different ideological perspectives and political affiliations, their
shared criticism of the waiver scheme and concerns about the direction of K–12
education reform highlight broader tensions and challenges within the education
policy landscape.
At the heart of their critique is the recognition that the K–12 education system
in the United States faces significant challenges and shortcomings that require
meaningful reform and improvement. Issues such as achievement gaps, inequitable
funding, inadequate resources, inconsistent standards and assessments, and disparities
in educational opportunities persist despite decades of reform efforts and investments.
Both the AFT and Chairman Kline agree that the current trajectory of education
policy, characterized by the proliferation of waivers and regulatory burdens, is not
effectively addressing these underlying issues.
Chairman Kline's assertion that the K–12 education system is "broken" reflects
a widely held sentiment among policymakers, educators, and stakeholders who are
frustrated by the lack of progress and persistent challenges facing schools and
students. His criticism of the waiver scheme as "not the answer" suggests skepticism
about the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Obama administration's approach to
education reform, which has relied heavily on waivers from federal mandates under
the No Child Left Behind Act.
Similarly, the AFT's decision to align with Chairman Kline in opposing the
waiver extension underscores concerns within the education community about the
impact of federal mandates and regulatory burdens on schools, teachers, and students.
The AFT has long been critical of high-stakes testing, accountability measures, and
punitive sanctions associated with federal education policies, arguing that they
undermine teaching and learning, exacerbate inequities, and stifle innovation.
Both the AFT and Chairman Kline raise valid concerns about the potential
consequences of the waiver extension, including the imposition of "arbitrary rules"
and "regulatory burdens" that may further complicate and constrain the ability of
states and districts to address the unique needs and challenges facing their schools and
students. Their shared criticism of the waiver scheme as contributing to "confusion"
suggests a recognition of the need for clarity, coherence, and stability in education
policy to support effective implementation and improvement efforts.
Moving forward, the convergence of viewpoints between the AFT and
Chairman Kline presents an opportunity for bipartisan collaboration and dialogue on
education policy reform. By finding common ground and working together to address
shared concerns about the direction of K–12 education reform, policymakers and
stakeholders can foster a more constructive and inclusive approach to improving the
nation's schools and ensuring that all students have access to high-quality education
opportunities.
Federalism dictates the broad outline of power sharing among local, state, and
federal entities, but there are many opportunities for overlap, as outlined previously.
With the federal government leveraging its provision of funding to states for increased
power over policies, states accepting more responsibility for the performance of
schools, and local boards trying to hold on to their traditional purview over education,
it gets complicated. The current version of education “reform” seems to disfavor local
school boards and schools, as “the new educational executives are seen as more likely
than school boards and bureaucracies to give a fair hearing to these various reform
ideas by virtue of being less invested in the status quo” (Henig, 2013, p. 69).
Governors (as one of the new educational executives) and the state will likely hold on
to and/or increase their new power in the foreseeable future as the federal government
continues to incent their action (see Cross, 2014; Shober, 2012; Ujifusa, 2014).
However, until local school boards are absolved of budgeting district funds, hiring
local teachers, and setting the local curriculum, local school districts will continue to
exert a tremendous amount of influence over K–12 classrooms.
c. Finance
The governance issues described previously certainly play into the
complexities of school finance. In all states, school funding is a mix of state, local,
and federal dollars, but the precise mixture varies across states. Most states allocate
funding to local school districts through a formula, usually one that “ties distribution
of funds to student enrollment and local revenue capacity” (Roza, 2013, p. 39).
Ultimately, local school boards are responsible for allocating funding that comes from
these sources, but they are restricted by the requirements attached to the funding.
Restrictions could include state laws that mandate a certain number of students per
teacher, thereby requiring local school boards to hire a set number of teachers.
Restrictions also come from requirements attached to federal funding, such as only
spending certain dollars on schools with a specific percentage of low-income students.
Finally, local community groups, including teachers’ unions and businesses, usually
have ideas about how their elected school board should allocate funding.
Prior to allocation issues, there is a never-ending argument about the amount
of funding local school districts receive. Local school leaders (and/or the groups
representing those leaders) complain that the state does not provide enough funding—
either the state is not fully funding its formula, or the formula does not reflect the
current needs of schools. On the other hand, state leaders must balance budgets, and
K–12 is the largest state expenditure. There are likely no state leaders that set out to
monetarily starve schools, especially since education is a large factor in a state’s
economic development strength. Rather, the issue centers on whether state leaders
understand what schools need and/or what resources are required to provide desired
student achievement results. Further, economic downturns can restrict the state dollars
available for school allocation.
Although there are debates about what constitutes the “right” amount of
funding, there is a good amount of data to shed light on current levels of funding. The
most recent information available from the National Center for Education Statistics
shows that the total amount of revenue for public K–12 schools was $600 billion for
school year 2011–12. The majority of funding came from state sources (45.2%), while
local sources were a close second (44.6%) followed by federal sources (10.2%)
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). This is drastically different from
almost 100 years ago, when the federal government provided less than 1% of K–12
funding, the state provided 16% and local governments provided over 83% (Cross,
2014). Increases in state and federal funding over the years seem to track these
entities’ increased roles in education governance.
Note that these are national averages, and the amounts/percentages vary by
state. For example, only 5.4% of total education revenue in New Jersey is from
federal sources, compared to 16.6% in South Dakota. This variation could be due to a
couple of factors, including the number or percentage of students who qualify for
grant funding (e.g., Title I funding) or the state’s decision to apply for certain federal
funds (e.g., RTTT). The mixture of state and local funding also differs by state. In
California, 56.3% of school funding is from state sources and 31.1% is from local
sources. Compare this to Missouri, where 32.0% of funding is from the state and
57.8% of funding is from local revenues.
An important note concerning revenues is how some states try to even the
playing field between wealthy and tax-poor school districts. If a portion of school
funding is generated from local taxes, the robustness of the local tax base will either
help feed or starve school coffers. In an effort to ensure all students have access to a
quality education, states often find ways to equalize funding across school districts—
often to a minimum funding level. There are still disparities in funding between
wealthy and poorer school districts, but states do recognize the issue and attempt to
address it, at least in part.
Even in inflation-adjusted dollars, per pupil expenditures have increased over
time. Still, 30 states are providing less funding per student than in 2007, which was
the onset of the latest economic downturn. Fourteen states have cut per student
funding by more than 10%. Of those states that have increased per student funding,
none are located in the south. There is a significant range between states; for example,
North Dakota increased per student funding by 31.6% over the past seven years,
whereas Oklahoma decreased per student funding by 23.6% (Leachman & Mai,
2014). What do schools do with this funding? One of the largest expenditures school
districts make is providing teachers for students.
Obviously, the relative “buying power” of teachers’ salaries has remained
about the same over the past 40 plus years as we look at the change in inflation-
adjusted dollars. It is important to consider cost-of-living factors when examining
state high and low salaries. For instance, it makes sense that New York would have
the highest average salaries while South Dakota has the lowest, given the relative
costs of living in those states. Historically, the promise of a secure and healthy
pension has compensated for teachers’ relatively low salaries and lack of opportunities
for pay raises as compared to other professions. According to the National Council on
Teacher Retirement, there are currently $2 trillion being held in trust funds of its
member systems (National Council on Teacher Retirements, n.d.). A majority of states
still offer a defined benefit plan, which means that educators are guaranteed an
amount of annual income after retirement. In a survey of all state benefit plans,
researchers found that annual retirement income “is determined by a formula that
takes into account the years of service for the educator in the state and the person’s
earnings during his or her career”
Defined benefit pension plans are coming under scrutiny due to tighter
government budgets and teacher quality reforms. The economic recession starting in
2007–2008 hurt retirement reserves, and long-time underfunding by some states left
retirement systems in dire straits. Additionally, defined benefit systems reward
teachers for longevity; it usually takes 5 to 10 years to vest in the system, and the
retirement benefits increase as one continues to teach. This counteracts some teacher-
related reforms like Teach for America, which recruits exceptionally bright college
graduates to teach in urban areas. Teach for America only requires a two-year
commitment. Therefore, the majority of those teachers, unless they teach beyond their
contracted time, will not earn retirement benefits. Other reforms include more
rigorous teacher evaluations to allow for easier dismissal of teachers not producing
student achievement gains. Policy leaders supporting these and similar reforms see
portable defined contribution plans (e.g., 401(k) plans) as more in line with a new
teaching workforce.
Finally, a discussion of school finance must acknowledge the role of courts.
Since the 1960s, 46 states have been embroiled in some type of school funding
litigation (Dinan, 2009). These lawsuits center on the adequacy (not enough funding
allocated by the state) and/or equity (funding distributed inequitably across the state)
of school funding and have occurred in three phases. Dinan (2009) found that until
1973, litigation generally first took the form of equity suits based in federal equal
protection claims. This ended in 1973 with the Supreme Court’s rejection of a federal
equal protection suit (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez). From
1973 to 1988, plaintiffs had only mixed success with equity suits based on state equal
protection clauses. Recent plaintiffs have had more success with adequacy challenges
based on state constitution education clauses (Dinan, 2009).
Since the 1960s, plaintiffs were victorious in 26 states, courts ruled for
defendants (the state) in 18 states, and 1 state court offered a mixed opinion (National
Access Network, 2014). Fourteen states have current activity regarding school finance
litigation, which could include recently filed cases, active trials, or implementation of
remedy. Only five states have never had a school finance lawsuit (National Access
Network, 2014). While no state government welcomes litigation or a negative
judgment, equity suits generally create more consternation than adequacy suits
because equity judgments usually require transferring funds from wealthier districts to
poorer districts, while adequacy judgments require an overall increase of funding
(Dinan, 2009). Dinan also found that increased state spending as a result of successful
school funding litigation does not always translate into increased student achievement
outcomes.
These cases have generated an important question for policymakers: What
should a quality (or adequate) education cost? For litigation purposes, this is often
done through a costing-out study that “determines the amount of money actually
needed to make available all of the educational services required to provide every
child an opportunity to meet the applicable state education standards” (National
Education Access Network, 2006). There are four basic methods states have used. The
most popular, used by 14 states, is the professional judgment model. In this approach,
“teams of professionals were asked to design an educational program that would meet
stated proficiency goals, and to identify all of the specific resources that would be
necessary for its success” (National Education Access Network, 2006). Related to
this, but less frequently used, is the expert judgment method, which is similar to the
professional judgment method, but uses education policy/research experts rather than
“in the field” professionals. Nine states have used the successful school district model,
which identifies “those school districts that are currently meeting state standards and
then [uses] their average expenditure amount as a fair estimate of the actual cost of an
adequate education.”
Cost function studies play a critical role in educational finance and policy
analysis by providing insights into the relationship between resource allocation and
student outcomes within school districts. These studies employ sophisticated analyses
of performance measures and cost indices to assess how much a given school district
would need to spend, relative to the average district, in order to achieve specific
performance targets, taking into account the unique characteristics of the district and
its student population.
At the heart of cost function studies is the recognition that educational
outcomes are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including instructional
quality, class size, curriculum, student demographics, socioeconomic status, and
community resources. By examining these factors in relation to spending levels,
researchers can gain a better understanding of the efficiency and effectiveness of
resource allocation within school districts, as well as identify opportunities for
improvement and investment.
One key aspect of cost function studies is the development of performance
measures and cost indices that capture the multifaceted nature of educational
outcomes and resource utilization. These measures may include student achievement
scores, graduation rates, college enrollment rates, attendance rates, teacher
qualifications, class sizes, per-pupil expenditures, and other indicators of educational
quality and efficiency. By analyzing these measures in conjunction with spending
data, researchers can assess the impact of resource allocation on student outcomes and
identify areas where additional investment or reallocation may be warranted.
Cost function studies also take into account the diverse needs and
characteristics of student populations within school districts, recognizing that
educational resources may need to be allocated differently to support students with
varying levels of need or disadvantage. For example, districts with higher
concentrations of low-income students, English language learners, or students with
disabilities may require additional resources to provide targeted interventions,
specialized services, and wraparound supports to address their unique needs and
promote equitable outcomes.
Moreover, cost function studies can help policymakers and education leaders
make informed decisions about resource allocation, budgeting, and strategic planning
within school districts. By identifying the most cost-effective strategies for improving
student outcomes and maximizing the return on investment in education, these studies
can inform budgetary priorities, programmatic initiatives, and policy reforms aimed at
enhancing educational equity, excellence, and efficiency.
In addition, cost function studies can inform debates and discussions about
education finance reform, school funding adequacy, and the equitable distribution of
resources across districts and schools. By shedding light on the relationship between
spending levels and student outcomes, these studies can contribute to more informed
and evidence-based policymaking, as well as promote transparency, accountability,
and equity in education finance systems.
Overall, cost function studies offer valuable insights into the complex
dynamics of resource allocation and educational effectiveness within school districts,
providing a foundation for evidence-based decision-making and continuous
improvement in education policy and practice. By leveraging the insights gained from
these studies, policymakers, educators, and stakeholders can work together to ensure
that all students have access to high-quality educational opportunities that prepare
them for success in school, career, and life.
d. Major Stakeholders
K–12 education has a plethora of major stakeholders—students, parents,
teachers, administrators, support organizations, taxpayers, and policymakers to name
a few. Traditionally, teachers’ unions have been very influential in federal and state
education policy. The two most popular national unions are the National Education
Association and the American Federation of Teachers. Both organizations have state-
level affiliates. In non-unionized states, teachers still maintain advocacy
organizations. Traditionally, these groups have endorsed political candidates and taken
stands on proposed legislation. Unions and other educator advocacy organizations
have lost some influence over the past decade. Arguably, since the introduction of
NCLB legislation, education reforms have focused on student needs, and
policymakers have been wary of teachers’ conceptions of these needs because unions
and other organizations are seen as most interested in the teachers’ welfare.
The evolving landscape of education policymaking has seen a shift in the
sources of input and influence, with policymakers increasingly seeking perspectives
from a diverse range of stakeholders beyond traditional educator representation.
While this trend may or may not be perceived as fair by all parties, it reflects a
growing recognition of the multidimensional nature of education reform and the need
for diverse voices and expertise to inform policy decisions.
One notable development is the increasing engagement of business and civil
rights organizations in education reform discussions and initiatives. Business leaders
bring insights from their experiences in management, innovation, and strategic
planning, offering perspectives on workforce development, economic
competitiveness, and the alignment of education with labor market demands. Their
involvement underscores the linkages between education and economic prosperity, as
well as the importance of preparing students for success in the 21st-century global
economy.
Similarly, civil rights organizations bring a focus on equity, social justice, and
educational opportunity, advocating for policies and practices that address disparities
in access, resources, and outcomes among historically marginalized and underserved
populations. Their engagement highlights the imperative of advancing educational
equity and closing achievement gaps based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
disability status, and other factors. By amplifying the voices of communities of color,
low-income families, English language learners, and students with disabilities, civil
rights organizations contribute to more inclusive and equitable education policies and
practices.
The involvement of business and civil rights organizations in education reform
reflects a broader trend towards cross-sector collaboration and partnership in
addressing complex social challenges. Recognizing that education is not solely the
responsibility of schools and educators, but a shared endeavor involving families,
communities, businesses, and other stakeholders, policymakers are increasingly
seeking input and expertise from a wide range of perspectives and sectors.
At the same time, the engagement of non-educator groups in education reform
has sparked debate and discussion about the appropriate balance of influence and
decision-making authority in shaping education policy. Some stakeholders may raise
concerns about the potential for corporate interests to shape education agendas, or the
marginalization of educator voices in policy deliberations. Others may argue that
diverse representation and collaboration are essential for addressing the multifaceted
nature of education challenges and achieving meaningful reform.
Moving forward, the challenge for policymakers, educators, and stakeholders
is to ensure that all voices are heard and valued in education policymaking processes,
and that decisions are informed by evidence, expertise, and a commitment to equity
and excellence for all students. By fostering dialogue, collaboration, and mutual
respect among diverse stakeholders, policymakers can harness the collective wisdom
and resources of the community to advance education reform efforts that benefit
students, families, and society as a whole.
Another stakeholder group with an increasing amount of influence is
foundations. Recent political science research illuminates the impact that foundations
are having on education policies. Reckhow and Snyder (2014) found two key reasons
why foundations have become so influential in education policy and politics. These
include the increase of entities challenging traditional education governance
jurisdiction and increased federal activity in education. The jurisdictional challengers
are “charter schools and other organizations that compete with or offer alternatives to
traditional educational institutions”. These challengers may also offer alternatives to
traditional teacher certification. The percentage of major foundation grant funding to
jurisdictional challengers greatly increased between 2000 and 2010. For example, in
2000, 3% of all education foundation funding went to charter schools, while 16%
went to traditional public schools. In 2010, charter school funding was at 16% of the
total, but traditional public school grants dropped to 8% also found overlap in agenda
and policy goals of major funders. In 2000, 23% of major foundation dollars were
given to organizations that had two or more major foundation funders. In 2010, the
percentage rose to 64%. Most notable was the alternative teacher preparation program
Teach for America, which, in 2010, received money from 13 of the top 15 funders.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation remains the predominant education foundation
in terms of funding (Reckhow & Snyder, 2014).
The increasing federal role in education has also provided an avenue for an
increasing role for foundations. Reckhow and Snyder (2014) found that “major
education foundations are increasingly politically engaged. . . . Coordinated, policy-
focused, and advocacy-oriented philanthropy provides an important pathway for
political influence among foundations” (p. 193). For example, Reckhow and Snyder
(2014) cite President Obama’s inclusion of foundations as part of a group called to
work on national education policy issues. Several top foundation staffers have also
earned high-level positions at the U.S. Department of Education in recent years. A
growing federal presence is consistent with Reckhow and Snyder’s (2014) data, which
shows the number of national advocacy grantees earning money from the top 15
foundations grew from 7 in 2000 to 34 in 2010, and the total amount of funding for
national advocacy and research grew from $56 million to $111 million in the same 10-
year time period. The role of foundations in shaping education policy is something to
be watched and researched in the years to come.
e. Major Policy Issues
Charter schools are independently operated public schools authorized (or
chartered) by some type of government body (usually a school district or state).
Charter schools sprang onto the education policy scene in the early 1990s in
Minnesota and now account for 6,440 schools around the nation, or 6% of all public
schools (The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2015). The concept behind
charter schools is that in exchange for autonomy from some state laws and
regulations, the school will meet certain goals. If those goals are not met within a
defined period, the school can be closed. The theory is that greater autonomy from
bureaucratic rules will allow for innovation that will produce increased student
achievement results. What constitutes an “innovation” is widely debated, but charter
schools often adopt unique curriculums (e.g., artsbased) or create strong community
collaborations for teaching experiences (e.g., a charter school in a museum). Charter
schools are also twice as likely as traditional public schools to utilize a year-round
school calendar.
Each state can decide whether and how to charter schools. Forty-two states
and the District of Columbia allow for charter schools, and these state laws vary by
what bodies can authorize schools, how schools are held accountable, and how many
schools a state will charter. The freedoms from law and regulation also vary by state,
but at a minimum, schools must meet certain federal laws related to civil rights,
special education, English language learners, and basic state health and safety rules.
Generally, charter schools do not have admissions requirements. If more students
want to attend a school than there is space available, a lottery is held. Some claim that
charter schools “cream” only the wealthiest or brightest students through targeted
marketing, but 54% of charter school students live in poverty, which is greater than
the U.S. average (Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2013). Parents from
all corners of society appear to be looking for school choice options. Charter schools
can be developed and operated by parents, teachers, community members, or any
combination of the above. Charter schools can also be developed by education
management organizations (EMOs)—not-for-profit or for-profit entities that operate
networks of charter schools.
A good deal of research examines the efficacy and equity of charter schools,
and overall, the studies have shown mixed results regarding student academic success,
organizational viability, and fiscal responsibility. Still, one of the latest rigorous
research studies shows some promising results. The Center for Research on Education
Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University has conducted many studies on charter
schools. Their most recent national study followed up on an earlier study conducted in
2009 which covered charter schools in 27 states that educate 95% of charter school
students in the U.S. The 2013 study found that academic achievement improved since
2009. “Charter schools now advance the learning gains of their students more than
traditional public schools in reading” (p. 9), with an average of eight additional days
of learning (Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2013). Math learning gains
of charter school students were similar to students in traditional public schools. This
upward trend in performance corroborates other research out of Vanderbilt University
that shows charter school achievement increases over time, once the start-up period is
over (Cannata, Thomas, & Thombre, 2014). Charter schools had significant positive
impacts on reading and math for students in poverty. When broken down state by
state, “the fraction of charter schools that outperform their local [traditional public
school] alternatives is 25% of charter schools in reading and 29% in math”.
Although EMOs and CMOs are defined in a variety of ways, the study defines
a CMO as a network of three or more charter schools and an EMO as “an organization
that provides school operations to independent charter schools and CMOs under
contract” (Peltason & Raymond, 2013, p. 3). These can be not-for-profit or for-profit
entities. This study investigated 167 CMOs between 2007 and 2011 and found that, on
average, these networked schools are “not dramatically better than non-CMO schools
in terms of their contributions to student learning” (Peltason & Raymond, 2013, p. 5).
The quality varied across the CMOs. Interestingly, “the average student in an EMO
school posted significantly more positive learning gains than either CMOs,
independent charter schools or the traditional public school comparisons” (Peltason &
Raymond, 2013, p. 7). Perhaps the scale and professionalism of EMOs (compared to
“mom and pop” charter schools or those that started as an independent school and
replicated to a network) contributed to the success of these schools. State laws on
charter schools are expanding. States are removing caps on the number of charter
schools, allowing for more autonomy, and increasing accountability. As the movement
ages, more is learned about how to make it successful, and charter schools will
continue to pose a “dramatic challenge to the education status quo”
Public school accountability has moved from a sole focus on inputs (e.g.,
number of books in a library, attendance rates) to a focus on outputs (e.g., student
standardized test results, high school graduation rates). This has impacted the way
teachers teach, how parents judge schools, and funding models. It has also impacted
the long-standing practice of school accreditation. Similar to licensing in early
childhood education, accreditation provides a baseline imprimatur of quality.
However, parents, the public, and policymakers are now looking at state and federal
accountability metrics rather than accreditation to determine the relative quality of a
school. Accreditation usually only garners the public’s attention when its loss is
threatened. Therefore, accrediting agencies must adapt, and AdvancED, the parent
organization for the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the North Central
Association Commission, and the Northwest Accreditation Commission, is a good
example of this adaptation. While continuing to perform accreditation functions as it
has in one organizational form or another since 1895, it also now acts as a school
improvement provider/consultant as schools work toward and beyond accreditation
for continuous improvement. AdvancED works with 32,000 schools and school
systems in the U.S. and 70 countries. It will be interesting to see whether and how
state accountability and school improvement activities coordinate with accreditation
activities that essentially overlap each other now.
Given the focus on increasing student achievement, it is not surprising that
there is a complementary focus on ensuring only quality teachers are in front of the
classroom. Some research finds that the top 20% of teachers can generate five to six
more months of student learning each year than lower-performing teachers (U.S.
Department of Education, 2014b). There are a couple of strands to this policy focus.
One includes accountability, which has been discussed throughout this, and includes
evaluating teacher quality based on students’ achievement results rather than the
traditional method of observations and principal feedback. Another strand is ensuring
teacher preparation programs are preparing teachers to be successful in the classroom
according to new accountability regimes. There are over 2,000 teacher preparation
programs in the U.S., and 90% of them are based at institutions of higher education.
Of these 2,000 programs, 69% are traditional (an education degree that then leads to
certification), 21% are alternative routes based within institutions of higher education
(often abbreviated or fast-track programs), and 10% are alternative routes not located
at a university or college (U.S. Department of Education, 2014b). This last category
includes Teach for America (TFA), a type of Peace Corps for education where bright
college graduates are recruited to teach in urban schools for at least two years and are
provided training by TFA.
Over 700,000 people are enrolled in teacher preparation programs, and the
vast majority (88%) are in traditional programs. However, while the percentage of
future teachers in alternative programs is relatively low, the percentage of program
completers is growing much faster at alternative non-college-based programs than at
traditional or alternative college-based programs (U.S. Department of Education,
2014b). Greater emphasis on the efficacy of teacher preparation programs has been
building over the past several years. In the 2008 federal Higher Education Act
amendments, teacher preparation programs were required to increase reporting
requirements (U.S. Department of Education, 2014b). Part of the current evaluation of
teacher preparation programs centers on student performance on state licensing or
certification exams. Fortyeight states require an assessment for teacher certification,
and 41 states use these pass rates for assessment of teacher preparation programs.
However, the minimum passing score may be artificially low because the average
student score on state exams is 10 to 23 points higher than the minimum score. The
pass rates and average scores of test takers did not vary much by the type of
preparation program students attended. Under this and other metrics, only 38 teacher
preparation programs in 11 states were classified as low-performing or at-risk of low
performance in 2011.
This pronouncement was followed by guidance to states in November 2014 on
designing plans to ensure low-income students have access to highly qualified
teachers. States must submit their plans to the federal government in June 2015.
Interestingly, these plans do not require student achievement as a measure of teacher
quality, which is a departure from previous NCLB waivers issued by the U.S.
Department of Education (Klein, 2014). With all of this policy emphasis on teacher
quality potentially indicating that a sizeable percentage of teachers are not of quality
now, anecdotes abound about disaffection of teachers. There is no doubt that pressure
is increasing on teachers, but recent federal survey data do not show what many might
expect.
Given the nation’s and states’ ambitious educational attainment and economic
development goals, more students will need to enter and graduate from college. This
means increasing the existing college-going rate of 66% and the college completion
rates of 60% or below (depending on type of institution) (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2015). Increasing the rigor of high school learning standards is
one way to help ensure students are prepared to enter some type of postsecondary
education.
Learning standards are not new. Most states have had some type of grade-level
and subject matter standards that teachers must teach and students must learn.
However, standards varied state to state and were often a mile wide and an inch deep,
providing vague direction to teachers and offering little rigor across the board for
students. In the mid-2000s, a push began for learning standards benchmarked to
college- and career-readiness in an attempt to help build a bridge between high school
graduation and a student’s next steps. Common rigorous standards across states made
sense to many political and educational leaders given the increasingly globally
competitive marketplace students would enter upon graduation. Many perceived that
students from Michigan would need the same knowledge and skills as students from
Alabama. The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School
Officers collaborated in an unprecedented effort to establish a common core of state
standards in reading and math. A number of partners, including Achieve, Inc., College
Board, ACT, and university researchers, assisted these two organizations. Developers
of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) examined previous standard-setting
efforts and international student comparisons (Conley, 2014). In June 2010, the new
“set of clear college- and career-ready standards for kindergarten through 12th grade
in English language arts/literacy and mathematics” (Common Core State Standards
Initiative, n.d.) were released at an event in a suburb of Atlanta with the Republican
governor of Georgia, the Democratic governor of Delaware, chief state school
officers, representatives of the NEA and AFT, and educators. This event was clearly
meant to be a bipartisan show of support for these standards. Notably, no federal
officials were present. Since then, 43 states have adopted the CCSS. Three other states
have adopted their own collegeand career-ready standards, and two states have
adopted most of the CCSS standards, but renamed them something else.
