for A plus writer only

nosyistypesif

soc320_chapter_09.pdf

Home >History homework help >for A plus writer only

H em

er a/

Th in

ks to

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will learn to:

• Identify issues and areas of concern for policy makers within contemporary U.S. education policy.

• Analyze the policy-making step of agenda setting within the context of U.S. education policy.

• Describe the public policy process as it affects the making of U.S. education policy.

A Case Study in Agenda Setting: The Development of Federal

Policy on Education

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 283 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.1 The Focus of Industrialized Nations on Education Policy CHAPTER 9

Education’s place on the U.S. policy agenda is a relatively recent development, com-ing to the forefront only in the second half of the 20th century. The issue’s estab-lished position on the institutional policy agenda reflects both shifts in education’s importance in the social sphere as well as growing concerns about its effectiveness. His- torically, education policy in the United States has largely been a matter for state and local governments. In recent decades the federal government has assumed greater responsibil- ity in addressing the problem, since public perception of declining educational standards and performance have pushed policy actors to move the issue higher on the national policy agenda. Nonetheless, education policy by and large retains its decentralized status, as the federal government has—for the most part—limited its role to allocating funds for education programs to state and local governments.

As a policy issue, education offers some helpful insights into the agenda-setting stage of the policy process. Chapters 3 and 4 discussed Kingdon’s multiple streams model as a framework to understanding how the policy agenda is set. The issue of education reform in the United States is a good example of how policy enactment occurs when the problem stream, the policy stream, and the politics stream merge and a window of opportunity—in this case, a widely acknowledged crisis of decline—presents itself.

9.1 The Focus of Industrialized Nations on Education Policy

During the 20th century, governments of industrialized nations became increas-ingly involved in the provision of education because of widespread views that an educated citizenry was necessary to thriving industry and global competitiveness. Since 1945 education expenditures have represented the fastest growing area of public spending. For each country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ment, education spending has absorbed, on average, 10% to 12% of total public expen- ditures and 6% of its gross domestic product (GDP). (GDP is the value of the goods and services that a country produces and imports minus the value of the goods and services it exports.) Table 9.1 shows national investment in education as a percentage of GDP since 1985 in nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In gen- eral, studies show that higher-income nations spend more public funds per student than do lower-income nations (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). These studies rank the United States at the upper level of public per-pupil expenditures.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 284 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.1 The Focus of Industrialized Nations on Education Policy CHAPTER 9

Table 9.1: Selected nations’ direct expenditures on public education as a percentage of their gross domestic product, 1985–2008

Nation 1985 1990 2000 2008

Norway 5.1 6.2 7.7 7.3

United States 4.7 5.3 5.1 7.2

Sweden 5.2 5.3 8.0 6.3

Canada 6.1 5.4 5.7 6.0

France 5.0 5.1 6.0 6.0

Mexico 3.0 3.2 4.2 5.8

Switzerland 4.9 5.0 5.5 5.7

United Kingdom 4.9 4.3 4.9 5.7

Ireland 5.6 4.7 4.5 5.6

Australia 5.4 4.3 4.8 5.2

Spain 3.6 4.2 4.5 5.1

Japan 3.7 3.6 3.5 4.9

Germany 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.8

Italy 4.7 5.8 4.9 4.8

Adapted from NCES, 2002, 2011a.

The prominence of education on a nation’s political agenda is a result of education’s bud- getary requirements and the essential function it performs in society—namely, an innova- tive, productive, and healthy workforce capable of consuming the fruits of its labor. The difficulty in analyzing public programs of education is that although a nation’s citizens generally support them in theory, intense controversy usually arises over precisely what education policy should emphasize. Some argue that public education should promote social mobility and encourage greater equality in society (Green, 1990). Others believe that public education should contribute to the well-being of the economy (Hirsh, 1976). An efficiently run economy requires an educated workforce; the more educated individu- als are, the more they can contribute to society. Education also provides individuals with skills that allow them to be financially independent of the state. Finally, a better educated workforce enables a nation to be more competitive in the international marketplace.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 285 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.2 Identified Problems in U.S. Education Policy CHAPTER 9

The government’s role in the provision of education in industrialized nations is that of a regulator, a funder or purchaser, and a provider or planner. The most common state role is that of provider or planner; data suggests that in most nations the role of the private sector in education is comparatively small (Green, 1990). However, state control of the public edu- cation system varies from nation to nation. Other differences also exist. For example, there are differences as to when compulsory education starts and finishes, although all education systems are divided along age lines. Also, different forms of educational specialization are available nation to nation (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2001).

What is remarkably similar in the vast majority of nations today is the demand for national educational reform. Behind such demands is the belief of politicians and corporate lead- ers that the way to solve society’s most pressing problems is through educational reform. Essentially, governing elites harbor a general consensus that if obstacles to economic development and progress, individual success, social harmony, and international com- petitiveness are to be removed, the way schools educate children has to change.

9.2 Identified Problems in U.S. Education Policy

The demand for reform in the United States is fueled by the belief that U.S. educa-tion is in a state of crisis. Many policy actors, educational specialists, and members of the public argue that the school system is failing: It is producing workers who cannot solve problems or compete in a competitive global economy. Although the United States spends more per student for secondary education than many other nations, it still lags behind in student international assessments for mathematics, reading, and science. In a 2009 comparison of academic performance in 34 nations, U.S. students performed in the middle range. On average, students in 13 nations ranked higher in reading than those in the United States; students from 16 nations scored higher in science than those in the United States; and students from 24 nations scored higher in mathematics than those in the United States. The top two nations in each testing area spent thousands of dollars less per student than did the United States at both the elementary and secondary levels. Despite federal per-student expenditures in the United States more than doubling since 1970, academic achievement, graduation rates, and dropout rates have remained stag- nant, and differences based on race or ethnicity and income clearly persist. Reviewing high school enrollment and graduation rates shows minorities at a distinct disadvantage (see Figure 9.1).

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 286 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.2 Identified Problems in U.S. Education Policy CHAPTER 9

Figure 9.1: High school dropout and graduation rates by ethnicity, 2008–2009

Many believe education can compensate for existing social and economic inequalities, but some disagree. Such equality of opportunity perspectives can influence policy development.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011b). The Conditions of Education 2011. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, Tables A-20-1, A-20-2.

The call for educational reform requires policy makers to deal with several policy prob- lems. First, who should have access to schooling? Integral to this question are beliefs about equality of opportunity in society. Many citizens and policy actors believe edu- cation can compensate for existing social and economic inequalities, prompting a call for universal access to education at all levels. The more restricted the access, the more likely existing social or economic divisions will be perpetuated. Others argue that because people differ greatly in their capabilities and aptitudes, not everyone is equally capable of benefiting from an education. In this view, to equalize education access is to waste resources. Achievement, especially at the secondary and university levels, should be the basis of access.

The second policy problem revolves around the content of education and the question of whether everyone should receive the same type of education. In essence, policy actors debate whether a liberal arts education is appropriate for everyone or whether some stu- dents benefit more from vocational education. A liberal arts education provides students with a generally well-rounded intellectual background in many fields of study. Such an educa- tion aims to reduce social and economic inequalities. A vocational education provides students with job-related skills; it is essentially technical training and represents a market orientation that emphasizes education as a means of promoting global competitiveness. This primary debate leads to arguments over who should receive which type of education and whether national standards and national testing or assessment programs should exist.

100

CaucasianNative AmericanHispanicAsian AmericanAfrican American

% Dropout Rates % Graduation Rates

10 4

P e rc

e n

ta g

Ethnicity

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 287 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

A third, and fundamental, policy problem centers on control of the educational system. Should the United Sates have a centralized educational system or a decentralized edu- cational system? In other words, should the national government control educational decision-making authority, or should it delegate responsibility for education to local gov- ernment? The United States, like other federal systems, tends to be more decentralized, delegating responsibility for education to the local level. Related to the question of control over education is the issue of who pays for schooling. Should education be publicly or pri- vately funded? Such a question inevitably leads to questions surrounding parental control and choice relative to local schools.

9.3 A Historical Overview of the Federal Government’s Approach to Education Policy

U.S. citizenship affords its citizens only one of the basic rights that are common in advanced welfare states: education. (A welfare state is a country in which govern-ment assumes responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, such as by adminis- tering health care and education.) However, historically the federal government has not played a central role in public education. Until the later decades of the 20th century, edu- cation reform was a policy matter for state levels. This clearly distinguishes the United States from many other industrialized nations where the national government is the central actor in the education policy sector. The U.S. federal government’s major role in education is to provide funding to states and school districts, known as the public provi- sion of education. Yet over the years, the federal government has persisted in abdicating responsibility, ensuring that public provision of education remains within the purview of state and local governments. The consequence has been disparity in the level and quality of education received by citizens from state to state. Public provision of education in the United States is highly decentralized and overseen by 50 different state education boards and at least 15,000 local school boards (Bierlein, 1993). Any attempt to implement a coor- dinated provision of public education in such a situation appears fruitless to many.

The narrative of education policy in the United States is one of dramatically increasing public expenditures and declining student achievement, which is a measure of students’ progress according to scores on national assessments. Since 1970 federal, state, and local spending for elementary and secondary education has totaled over $500 billion per year, and spending per pupil totaled more than $11,000 in 2009 (see Figure 9.2). How- ever, neither student achievement nor graduation rates have kept pace with increased per-pupil spending.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 288 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

Figure 9.2: Public expenditures for each elementary and secondary student, 1961–2009

Education expenditures continue to increase, but student achievement is declining.

US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of Education Statistics, 2010. Washington, DC: Author, Table 188 and Chapter 2.

Elementary Education in the 19th Century

The United States has had publicly financed education since the 1830s. Public funding came about because of a reform movement that advocated common school: free, secular schooling to boys and girls at the elementary level. The goal of providing a basic elemen- tary education was to prepare children to be good citizens (Bierlein, 1993). Integral to being a good citizen was a decent standard of living and the ability to compete equally with others, which education aimed to facilitate. By the 1860s more than 50% of children were enrolled in elementary schools financed by property taxes that were levied by local authorities. After an 1874 Supreme Court decision validating the use of taxes for public high schools, the 1880s policy agenda expanded secondary education. Before 1874 a high school–level education was available only to the elite class, through private schools or private tutoring. With expansion came the need for more teachers.

4,000

2,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

20 08

–0 9

20 07

–0 8

20 06

–0 7

20 05

–0 6

20 04

–0 5

20 03

–0 4

20 02

–0 3

20 01

–0 2

20 00

–0 1

19 90

–9 1

19 80

–8 1

19 70

–7 1

19 61

–6 2

Expenditure in Unadjusted Dollars Expenditure in Constant 2008–09 Dollars

A m

o u

n t

in D

o ll a rs

Year

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 289 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

Mass-Based Education: 1900 Through 1960

By the start of the 20th century, a system of public secondary schools provided mass-based education—education available to the population as a whole—to address the large influx of immigrants and to meet the needs of a rapidly expanding industrialized economy. A debate over curricula—particularly over the importance of an academic curriculum ver- sus the value of vocational training—accompanied such developments. In 1918 Congress attempted to resolve the debate and meet industry’s demands by providing federal fund- ing for vocational education programs as stipulated in the principles laid out in a report by the National Education Association of the United States’ Commission on the Reorga- nization of Secondary Education (Kirst, 1984). The report took a utilitarian approach to education in that it advocated educating the masses to be productive members of the labor force. Subsequently, secondary education became a two-track public secondary educa- tion system: one track for a small elite prepared to enter higher education and the profes- sional class, and a second track for the masses, laborers performing menial but vital work in various sectors of the economy.

During the Great Depression (1929 to 1941), public education suffered a decline. Children were forced to drop out of school to work and help support their families. People couldn’t afford to pay their property taxes, so schools were underfunded. As a result, schools were unable to hire teachers, provide supplies and current textbooks, or offer classes beyond the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Some schools couldn’t afford to provide elec- tricity, heat, or running water, making conditions difficult for teaching and learning. Many schools were forced to close, leaving students nowhere to obtain an education. Nonethe- less, the absence of jobs and the belief that the road to future employment was through education resulted in growing public secondary school enroll- ment. In the 1930s and 1940s, enrollment in secondary schools rose. Some of the New Deal eco- nomic programs implemented by President Franklin D. Roo- sevelt helped begin to turn the tide. For example, the Works Progress Administration pro- vided schools with funding for new teachers and supplies. Fur- ther, with World War II came an increase in industrialization, which led to economic recovery and reforms that prepared stu- dents for the world of work by providing both academic and practical skills.

This trend continued into the 1950s, when two events forced U.S. policy makers to rethink both the structure and the substance of public education in the United States. The first event was the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that educational segregation was unconstitutional. The court’s decision simply stated that

F1 Online/Superstock

Schools suffered during the Great Depression, but many people still believed that future employment depended on education.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 290 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

separate but equal education for African Americans as created by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) violated the equal-protection provisions of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court decision forced the federal government to consider the need for federal assistance to minority and low-income groups. The second event to make public educa- tion reform a major policy agenda item was the 1957 Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite. Many individuals perceived this as symbolic of the Soviet Union’s technological superi- ority and U.S. vulnerability to attack from superior Communist military strength. Better education, went the argument, was the only way the United States could regain its supe- riority over the Soviet Union. Education found a spot on the institutional agenda, and Congress responded by passing the National Defense Education Act of 1958, providing millions of federal dollars for math, science, and foreign-language education programs (Bierlein, 1993). The effects of this funding included the design and implementation of new curricula, training more teachers, and a renewed focus on academic excellence, rather than real-world skills.

Social Equity Through Public Education: 1960 Through 1980

The 1960s and 1970s were turbulent decades, with demonstrations and public protests of social ills and inequalities. Many believed that the existing public education system negated the pursuit of equity, and they demanded reform in national education policy. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and War on Poverty programs enacted laws that were the first serious attempts by government to remedy past societal inequities. They also addressed the federal government’s role in the provision of education. The Elemen- tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was the first such law. This earmarked $1.5 billion in federal aid for remedial course work, research, and instructional materials for the nation’s poorest schools. It was followed later in the same year by the appropriation of nearly $200 million for the establishment of the Head Start Program, the goal of which was to provide cultural enrichment to preschool children from low-income families. The program took off almost immediately, and by 1966 Head Start had served 733,000 low- income, mostly minority children (Committee on Ways and Means, 1993). This annual enrollment was not exceeded until after 1990.

Critics argue that the desire to strengthen equal opportunity involved introducing a number of strategies in the 1960s and 1970s, resulting in permissive education. Examples of permissive education include such developments as the easing of graduation require- ments; the protection through federal and state laws of increased access to higher educa- tion for minorities, women, and foreign-born students on the basis of status rather than achievement; and the general move away from a structured, disciplined learning envi- ronment to more open, freewheeling classrooms. Education policy expert Thomas Toch (1991) contended that public education was in a shambles during this period. Authors like sociologist James Coleman argued that the net result of permissive education was the exodus of urban Whites to the suburbs in search of a good old-fashioned education for their children (as cited in Ravatch, 1993), in effect, arguably reestablishing racial seg- regation. By the late 1970s many parents felt that public schools were inferior to private or parochial schools (Ravatch, 1993). This criticism forced demands for a return to aca- demic rigor. For those who resisted many of the Great Society’s equity-based programs, criticism of public schools also fueled even greater opposition to equity through civil rights and antipoverty measures.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 291 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

In the early 1980s this opposition to permissive education produced two trends that influenced U.S. public education: uniform standards and greater accountability. The assumption behind this reform was a belief that academic achievement can improve when rigorous education standards, uniform curricula, and assessment tests are imposed. The intended goal of the reform was not equity, but better quality education. Local authori- ties responded to demands for uniform standards and greater accountability by advocat- ing minimum skill levels for students and requiring that standardized test scores and other performance indicators improve in public schools. Such efforts to reform public school performance, however, were hindered by lack of finances. California Proposition 13 (1978) and Massachusetts Proposition 2 1/2 (1980) led to the adoption of tax limits in 17 states and the capping of property taxes. These restrictions on taxation severely lim- ited revenues for public schools. Voters were discontented with government in general and public education specifically (Guth, Garms, & Pierce, 1988).

Reforming Education as a Response to Market Needs: 1980 Through 1988

In 1981 President Ronald Reagan made it clear that a priority of his presidential admin- istration was to eliminate the federal Department of Education. Reagan’s administration was conservative and very critical of past education policies. In particular, the Reagan administration believed previous policies to be liberal, equity policies that weakened curricula, limited parental choice, rewarded participation instead of achievement, and produced children who were poorly educated in basic skills and the sciences. Reagan and his policy advisors argued that the only way to reform the system for the better was by introducing market forces. They advocated mechanisms such as school vouch- ers, which would allow parents to use tax dollars to pay for private education for their children. These market forces supposedly would produce a competitive education sys- tem. Other proposed policy solutions called for increased graduation requirements, enhanced standards for teacher certification, and in some areas, tying teachers’ salaries to their students’ performances.

The fears of many seemed confirmed when the National Commission on Excellence in Education published its 1983 report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. The report claimed that U.S. public education was in a state of crisis (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The report intensified concerns about education related to international competitiveness. It concluded by recommending that vigorous reform was the only way to restore quality. Such reform was necessary because U.S. workers were ill-prepared for the new global competitive marketplace, and their per- formance was below that of the past generation. The major effect of A Nation at Risk was to inspire a movement in the United States known as the excellence movement, whose primary goal was an intensive approach to education that would introduce rigor in the nation’s public schools. Supporters of the movement argued that such an approach would raise graduation standards for students and teachers and reemphasize the importance of education overall. Armed with the report’s findings, the business community and public opinion quickly demanded that the report’s findings be formulated as policy. The report and reaction to it acted as the necessary triggers in returning education reform to the insti- tutional agenda.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 292 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

A number of subsequent published reports seem to confirm many citizens’ views that the problem was not confined solely to public elementary and high schools, but that U.S. higher education was also failing to produce quality graduates (Wingspread Group on Higher Education, 1983). The media carried stories of how most U.S. graduates could not perform simple tasks such as giving change, writing letters, or understanding an article from the newspaper. These stories suggested that U.S. higher education was pro- ducing functionally illiterate citizens. The demand to revamp education at all levels in the United States grew. Critics reemphasized the need for a change in the educational system’s focus: away from equality of access and toward equality of performance. Other demands called for further decentralized decision making, reformed school administra- tion, stricter accountability, and a restructured curriculum. The assumption behind all of these demands was that education should be more responsive to market needs. A number of states and cities experimented with such reforms.

The Reagan administration responded by transferring to the states more education decision-making authority, thus reducing the federal government’s role overall. By 1986, 35 states had moved to adopt legislation reforming educational processes and structures. Apart from relinquishing decision-making authority to the states, the Reagan administra- tion did not develop any other comprehensive responses.

Education as a Means to a Competitive Workforce: 1988 Through 2004

The first real attempt to formulate policy for public education reform came during the George H. W. Bush presidency. In 1989 the president convened an education summit of

business leaders, government offi- cials, politicians, and educators. Goals developed at the summit were formulated as policy propos- als and submitted to Congress in 1991 as the America 2000 plan. The original plan concentrated on using market mechanisms as the impetus for change, focusing on govern- ment funding for parental choice between public and private schools. America 2000 was presented as a national plan for school reform. It advocated national standards of student performance and called for the evaluation of local schools through public report cards and better teacher preparation.

The America 2000 plan illustrates the problem of divided government at the national level and its implications for policy making. The Democratic-controlled Congress and the Republican-controlled White House had very different ideas about the nature of educa- tion reform, and the America 2000 proposal as originally submitted underwent intense partisan debate. For the most part, Democrats strongly opposed the funding of parental school choice for a variety of reasons, among them opposition from teachers’ unions and

Thinkstock

As part of Goals 2000, former president Bill Clinton proposed national standards and testing.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 293 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

concerns that public funds might be used for religious-based institutions. The Democrati- cally controlled Senate rejected the administration’s $30 million spending proposal on school-choice programs. Other fights over national standards and a national assessment system resulted in gridlock or inaction (Bierlein, 1993).

Education reform was a prominent campaign issue in the 1992 presidential election, thus insuring its place on the institutional agenda. By 1992 many supporters of education reform were arguing that the approach of the past two administrations had been too incremen- tal and that the only way the education system could produce students whose achieve- ment levels matched those of other nations would be through comprehensive reform. The administration of President Bill Clinton responded with the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. For Clinton and his supporters, the proposals represented dramatic reform, but in reality Goals 2000 was very similar to the America 2000 plan. The one real difference was replacing school-choice proposals with the pursuit of charter schools: new or reorganized independent, public schools that would be held accountable for results agreed upon in charters authorizing their creation. Clinton also proposed national standards and testing.

Despite the similarity in the America 2000 and Goals 2000 recommendations, partisan con- flict surrounding education reform continued, with many of the same disputes as in the 1980s and early 1990s. Many Republicans feared federal control of education if national standards were implemented. They argued that the nation’s 15,000 local districts would lose their ability to choose their own curriculum and assessment methods. Democrats also opposed national tests on the grounds that such test results could be used to cut funding to areas and schools that performed poorly. Such a reduction in funding would further disadvantage many students who were already attending underfunded, low-performing schools. Further, such tests would be unfair to disadvantaged and non-English-speaking students. In spite of both major political parties’ opposition to national standards and tests, public opinion polls indicated that most Americans strongly favored national assessment. (In 1991, by a margin of 68% to 24%, Gallop Polls showed the public was in favor of public schools using a standardized national curriculum.)

Goals 2000 eventually passed in 1994 due to the support of influential Democrats, favor- able public opinion, and lobbying from powerful business groups. The act established national education goals and voluntary national performance standards, and it autho- rized funding for states that agreed to comply with these standards. The act also created a number of national panels, councils, and boards to oversee standards. For the Clinton administration, Goals 2000 represented an integral part of a reform package of the U.S. educational system. As Table 9.2 shows, Goals 2000 identified eight specific objectives for U.S. schools to achieve by 2000. When signing Goals 2000 in April 1994, Clinton stipulated that $700 billion would be provided for education for 1995.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 294 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

Table 9.2: Objectives of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act

Objective Goal

School Readiness By 2000 all children in America will start school ready to learn.

School Completion By 2000 the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90%.

Student Achievement and Citizenship

By 2000 all students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our nation’s modern economy.

Teacher Education and Professional Development

By 2000 the nation’s teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all U.S. students for the next century.

Mathematics and Science

By 2000 U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.

Adult Literacy and Lifelong Learning

By 2000 every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Safe, Disciplined, and Alcohol- and Drug-Free Schools

By 2000 every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.

Parental Participation By 2000 every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children.

Despite its eight specific objectives, the Goals 2000 Act was plagued by implementation difficulties. Opposition to the act was such that an array of groups in many localities blocked changes requiring curriculum control and outcomes-based education. For exam- ple, conservative religious groups exerted pressure on or gained control of local school boards and refused to implement changes. Public school bureaucrats and teachers sharply criticized the act’s proposed curriculum control and testing and worked to block such reforms. The structure of the political system also hindered the implementation process: Because the separation of powers essentially gives control of public education to local governments, comprehensive change takes place only with difficulty. Still, most of the nation’s state governments, led by governors from both political parties, endorsed confor- mity with Goals 2000’s required reforms. Business and the public also remained steadfast in their commitment to Goals 2000, and indeed, public opinion subsequently called for even more far-reaching reforms.

Many barriers and obstacles still faced the public education system in the 1990s. For example, disparity in public school finance persisted, in spite of educational reform in the states aimed at reducing the differences in per-pupil funding among school districts.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 295 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

The proportion of existing differences among states in per-pupil expenditures on instruc- tion increased throughout the 1990s (NCES, 1999). Differences in opinion regarding the appropriate proportion of local to state and federal funding didn’t help matters. Some argued that local funding and control of public education are essential to maintaining public sector commitment to public provision of education and ensuring that education reflects community values and needs. On the other hand, relying on local funding may lead to inequities in public education financing because of disparities in local wealth. At the same time, school districts that rely on higher levels of state funding are more vul- nerable to funding shortfalls during economic recessions than are districts with higher proportions of local funding. This is because local property taxes provide relative stability compared to the sales and income taxes upon which states tend to depend to fund low- wealth school districts.

The education expenditures per student in public elementary and secondary schools rose significantly in the late 1980s, but they increased more slowly during the early 1990s (see Table 9.3). The table shows that expenditures per student grew 20% (after adjustment for inflation) between the academic years 1985–1986 and 1989–1990. This increase could be interpreted to reflect the issue’s prominence on the public agenda. A slowdown in growth to less than 1% took place between the 1989–1990 and 1994–1995 academic years. Many would argue this stasis can be correlated to a lull in education’s visibility as an issue on the agenda. However, as concern with the issue became more prominent in Clinton’s second administration, expenditure per student rose 6% between 1994–1995 and 1999–2000.

Table 9.3: Expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, selected years from 1961–1962 to 1999–2000

School year Expenditures in unadjusted dollars Expenditures in constant 2008–2009 dollars1

1961–1962 $393 $2,808

1970–1971 842 4,552

1980–1981 2,307 5,718

1986–1987 3,682 7,105

1990–1991 4,902 7,857

1995–1996 5,689 7,904

1996–1997 5,923 8,002

1997–1998 6,189 8,214

1998–1999 6,508 8,490

1999–2000 6,912 8,765

1 Data based on the Consumer Price Index, prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, adjusted to a school-year basis.

US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Digest of Education Statistics, 2000. Washington, DC: Author, Table 170.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 296 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

Accountability as a Component of Educational Reform: 2001 Through 2012

In 2000 and again in 2004, President George W. Bush campaigned as an education activ- ist concerned about the failings of the educational system. With the announcement of his education bill in 2001, he promised that no child would be “left behind” and vowed to stop subsidizing failing initiatives and schools. Bush believed in the use of market forces to stimulate the public sector into better provision of education and argued that the United States was struggling to remain competitive in the global economy because its workforce did not have the skills to compete with workers in other nations. He argued that increased public funding had failed to bring about dramatic improvements in student performance and that the only way to fix a system that was clearly underperforming was through increased accountability. Students, teachers, and districts must be held accountable for good or bad performance, according to Bush. Thus, accountability would serve as a cata- lyst for reform. Bush advocated the federal government acting as a lever for educational reform while allowing the state and local governments to implement it.

In early years the Bush administration undertook a number of educational initiatives. For example, the administration increased funding for the National Science Foundation and created new programs to strengthen science and mathematics achievement levels for high school students. However, the centerpiece of Bush’s education policy was the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB’s goal was to introduce national standards to an education system in which only two thirds of teenagers graduated from high school, a percentage that decreased to 50% for African Americans and Hispanics. As Chapter 7 dis- cussed, the NCLB legislation attempted to measure and close the gap in student achieve- ment, provide options to parents with children in low-performing or failing schools, and target increased funding to low-income schools and districts.

The response to NCLB has been mixed. Many analysts argue that the legislation has been successful and state that students are performing better in reading and math since the implementation of NCLB, although the improvement is not dramatic (see Figure 9.3). On the other hand, critics argued that it was originally underfunded and focused too much on standardized test scores as an indicator of achievement. Other critics suggested it labeled too many schools as unsuccessful when in the majority of such cases, the charge was unwarranted and impractical. For example, 7 months after the legislation was signed by the president, states and school districts were scrambling to identify failing schools as defined by the law. In Connecticut, education officials were in major disagreement over which schools should be on the state’s list (Newman, 2002). In New Jersey, the state’s 2,300 schools were ranked using test scores from 1999. As a result, the process identified 274 schools that did not show requisite annual improvements (Newman, 2002). Even suc- cessful schools would be penalized under NCLB if they failed to escalate their results in meeting national metrics that—in many cases—were all but unattainable.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 297 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

Figure 9.3: Trends in reading and math scores, 1990–2011

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 aimed to close the gap in achievement by providing national standards for the U.S. education system.

US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2011 Mathematics Assessments and 1992–2011 Reading Assessments.

Grade 4 Scores Grade 8 Scores

S c o

re S

c o

100

150

200

250

300

201120092007200520032000199619921990

100

150

200

250

300

2011200920072005200320022000199819941990

Year

Math Scores

Reading Scores

Year

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 298 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 9

When President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, many expected to see his adminis- tration tackle the country’s education problems with a progressive reformist agenda. In his campaign for the presidency, Obama articulated an ambitious agenda that promised increased federal funding for all programs and in particular inner-city schools. He also made promises to improve preschool quality, overhaul NCLB and implement merit-based teacher incentives. The president named Arne Duncan, the former chief executive of Chi- cago’s public school system, to oversee his educational policy agenda.

Underlying Obama’s agenda was his firm conviction that the United States must invest in education to remain competitive with other nations and that all students, regardless of socioeconomic status, must be afforded the same opportunities to reach high levels of educational attainment. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that Obama’s administration spearheaded in 2009, $77 billion went to reforms supporting ele- mentary and secondary education, and $5 billion was appropriated for early childhood education programs.

Additionally, in 2009 Obama established the Race to the Top program, with an appropria- tion of $500 million. Race to the Top allows the states to compete for federal grants based on their meeting certain criteria:

• Teacher and principal salaries based on student achievement in standardized tests • Adoption of national benchmark standards and student achievement

assessments • Implementation of effective programs to turn around failing schools • Creation of data systems to measure student success and track students

longitudinally • Loosening of requirements for charter school creation and operation

In essence, Race to the Top’s goals are the successful turnaround of poorly performing schools and districts, the implementation of teacher evaluation systems, and common K–12 teaching standards linked to student achievement. The program proposes various reforms to meet these goals, such as closing “failing” schools and either reopening them as charter schools or keeping them closed and transferring their students to better per- forming schools; assessing students on their learning “gains” through pre- and postcourse exams; awarding merit pay to teachers based on their students’ gains in learning; and eliminating seniority as a criteria for teacher retention and salary raises. However, just as NCLB met with mixed reviews, so has the Race to the Top program. First, not all states participate in it, which creates disparity. Next, teacher unions criticize its emphasis on linking teacher evaluation and salary increases to student achievement, arguing that test scores are an unfair and incomplete measure of teacher performance. Finally, some fear that state and local government autonomy in education policy making is compromised by the imposition of national standards.

The Obama administration has undertaken several other educational reforms in addi- tion to Race to the Top. In 2010 the administration implemented the Promise Neighbor- hoods grants program, which provides youth in identified Promise Neighborhoods with effective schools and parent- and community-support networks that provide an excellent educational experience and help with the transition to college. Next, the administration restructured the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics, an agency within the Department of Education whose role is to provide opportunities for

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 299 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.3 A Historical Overview of Education Policy CHAPTER 9

Hispanic Americans to participate in federal education programs. Obama's restructur- ing of the agency increased primary through postgraduate education opportunities for Hispanic students. Obama has also pursued some higher education initiatives, such as reforming student aid for college students by significantly expanding the federal govern- ment support for Pell grants, thus increasing the number of beneficiaries from 6 million to 9 million since 2008. In addition, the federal government now stipulates that borrowers of student loans signed after July 14, 2014, will pay a monthly maximum of 10% of their disposable income after they graduate and that after 20 years, any remaining loan is for- given. For borrowers employed as public servants, student loans will be forgiven 10 years after repayment begins.

Even though many view the Obama administration’s education agenda as impressive— particularly at a time when the country is experiencing such a dramatic downturn in its economy—many education specialists see no real difference between the George W. Bush administration and the Obama administration in terms of their respective educa- tion policy goals and objectives. According to many critics, the Obama White House has reinforced standardized testing’s importance in determining teachers’ salaries, keeping teachers’ jobs, and assessing which schools remain open. Critics also say that the Obama administration has encouraged a migration from traditional public schools to charter schools (see Table 9.4). Further, critics argue the administration has been quick to dictate education policy to the states and that it has little respect for the separation of powers between federal and state levels.

Table 9.4: Number of students enrolled in charter schools, 1999–2010

Year Number of students enrolled

1999–2000 340,000

2001–2002 571,000

2003–2004 789,000

2005–2006 1,013,000

2007–2008 1,277,000

2009–2010 1,611,000

US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 1999–2010.

For many, programs like Race to the Top represent a move toward an unprecedented centralization of control of education, where the federal government has greater say in curriculum, testing, teacher qualifications, hiring, and education spending. In fact, the Obama administration has increased federal and state spending on education. In 2012 the president’s budget request for discretionary funds for the Department of Education repre- sented a funding increase of 21% from the 2010 amount and 31% from 2008 (see Table 9.5).

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 300 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.4 Education Policy and the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 9

No Child Left Behind Act The goals of NCLB were to close the achievement gap and have academic standards. But several years later, reforms are needed to make the policy more effective. These reforms will help nearly every state raise their standards for learning and give several states the flexibility to implement their own reforms to meet higher standards that they set for themselves. Obama speaks on education, the power of teachers, and the reform of NCLB in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=K3ymiMifLb8.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. What is the conflict between the goals of NCLB and the implementation of NCLB? 2. Why did Obama permit 10 states flexibility to implement reforms? 3. What are some initiatives states are taking to reform their education systems?

9.4 Education Policy and the Agenda-Setting Process

Education policy in the United States in recent times offers a good example of how an issue becomes part of the agenda through the conjunction of the three streams in Kingdon’s (1984) multiple streams model for the agenda-setting process (Chapters 3 and 4). Agenda setting around comprehensive education reform in the United States has resulted from a set of interrelated factors:

• Fears surrounding the ability of the United States to compete in the global mar- ketplace drove public attitudes on education reform and affected the agenda (institutional or systemic) on which the issue was placed.

• Backed by the business community and public educators, U.S. society perceived that students did not measure up to their peers in other industrialized coun- tries and that this ultimately was detrimental to future economic strength and prosperity.

• This perception then moved the issue of large-scale educational reform onto the institutional agenda. (See Chapter 4 for a discussion of institutional and systemic agendas.)

Table 9.5: Department of Education funding, 2008–2012

Year Amount in billions of dollars

2008 $59.20

2009 62.60

2010 64.10

2011 68.30

2012 77.40

US Census, 2012.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 301 11/21/12 1:00 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3ymiMifLb8

Section 9.4 Education Policy and the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 9

The key to successful agenda building in the public education policy sector is the merg- ing of the problem stream, the policy stream, and the politics stream at pivotal points or windows of opportunity (Kingdon, 1984).

The Problem Stream

Political scientist Deborah Stone argues that the problems stream in education policy depends on numbers as symbols (Stone, 1988). Numbers are perceived to be precise and objective and can establish norms, although of course numbers can be manipulated if desired. However, numbers related to educational standards in the United States have been used since the 1950s as part of a symbolic narrative to show decline and the existence of “real” problems needing to be rectified. Over the years, agenda setting around U.S. public education reform has been facilitated by public perception of declining achieve- ment and inability to compete economically in the new global order. The existence of problems within U.S. public education has been both perceived and acknowledged. A public perception of deficiencies in curriculum, student scores, and lack of teacher and student competency has prompted demand for education reform. Combined with the fear of loss of international competitiveness, the perception of a failing system has moved edu- cation reform from the systemic agenda to the institutional agenda.

Report after report emphasized the depth of the problem, and as various actors and par- ticipants lobbied for change and publicly articulated the weaknesses of the U.S. educa- tional system, education reform moved higher on the agenda. The issue-attention cycle theory clearly explains education reform’s placement on the institutional agenda in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It was an issue that garnered great public attention. However, sober realism over the costs and obstacles of reform soon accompanied the attention and concern. By the 1970s the issue no longer had a place on the institutional agenda but continued to remain a prominent issue on the sys- temic agenda. By the mid-1980s education policy reemerged as an issue high on the institutional agenda. Once again, the perception of problems propelled the issue of education reform onto the public agenda.

Education reform’s return to prominence in the 1980s can be best explained through the punc- tuated equilibrium framework. Relying on this framework, one can argue that the cycle of policy activity in the 1970s led to a period of mobilized public and private interest in educa- tion issues in the 1980s. This heightened interest resulted in increased activism over education reform, creating even more attention and driving policy responses by both the Bush and Clinton

Blend Images/Superstock

Public education reform in the United States has been facilitated by public perception of declining achievement and inability to compete economically in the new global order.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 302 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.4 Education Policy and the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 9

administrations. The increased activism surrounding the issue has not dissipated since— education reform is a crucial and substantive policy item debated by all candidates in presidential campaigns since 2000.

The Policy Stream

If problems are identified, then policy solutions will inevitably be advanced. However, recognition a problem exists does not necessarily mean that appropriate or relevant policy proposals will be offered as possible solutions. In the public education policy sector in the United States, the policy stream is complicated by the lack of consensus about which pol- icy recommendation will produce the desired goals of efficiency, equity, choice, and com- petency. In short, policy actors advance specific reform policies but with no clear sense that they will produce better educated or better prepared individuals.

The last 40 years have witnessed an explosion of proposed policy solutions, which only perpetuates the notion of a crisis in public education. The policy recommendations have been wide-ranging in both goals and objectives. Some recommended policies are dra- matic; others are incremental. Some solutions advocate changes in how students are taught; others aim to change the curriculum; and still other proposals recommend remov- ing education from the public domain and allowing greater privatization. Over the years, the one thing all recommended policy solutions have in common is an acknowledgment that a problem does exist and that a better learning environment needs to be promoted.

The Political Stream

Politics forced education reform onto the agenda. As political climates changed, educa- tion reform was sometimes more and sometimes less an issue that demanded attention on the public agenda. A return in 1980 to political values emphasizing smaller government and greater local control led the public and the business community to support reform proposals giving schools and parents greater control over education decisions. The politi- cal stream includes changes in policy makers’ receptivity to reform, changes in national mood, and heightened interest-group activity.

The power and activism of business interests and its political influence on the policy- making process from the early 1980s onward cannot be ignored. Business interest groups’ objective was to serve their own purposes in regard to education reform. Their role and influence in setting the agenda around education reform was great. Such interest-group activity accompanied growing media debate over falling standards and the rise of foreign economic competitors with better educated workers.

When Reagan’s election led to the federal government’s abdicating much of its respon- sibility for public education, a grassroots movement advocating educational reform also started to mobilize. The movement is credited with impressing upon elected officials the large-scale dissatisfaction of taxpayers over the quality and direction of education in the United States. As a consequence, the issue of education reform was firmly established on the institutional agenda at the start of the new millennium.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 303 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.5 Federalism, the Policy Process, and Educational Reform CHAPTER 9

9.5 Federalism, the Policy Process, and Educational Reform

As this chapter has explored, there are many challenges to educational reform. Efforts at reform are complicated by the fact that the United States has no compre-hensive national education policy because there are multiple centers of decision- making power in the education policy area. This decentralized decision-making structure is largely the result of federalism, the system of government that distributes power between the federal government and the states (Chapter 2). Federalism structures education policy making at every stage of the process. According to the U.S. Constitution, education is a state responsibility. However, in most states the authority to operate and finance schools has been delegated to local school districts (see Table 9.6).

Table 9.6: Key educational decisions made at the state and local levels

Standards and curriculum

• Setting standards for what children should learn in core subjects. • Determining specific curriculum content. • Choosing textbooks and other curriculum materials.

Testing and accountability

• Developing and administering tests to measure student progress. • Determining whether students must take and/or pass an exit exam to graduate. • Determining what constitutes proficient performance or a passing score on state tests. • Establishing systems to hold schools and districts accountable for students’ academic progress.

Staff hiring, evaluation, and compensation

• Establishing requirements for the preparation, licensing, certification, and evaluation of teachers and administrators.

• Making decisions about staff hiring and teacher collective bargaining. • Determining salaries, benefits, and job requirements for teachers, administrators, and other staff.

Structure of schooling

• Setting requirements for years and ages of compulsory schooling and attendance. • Determining the length of the school year, school day, and school schedules. • Determining grade configurations. • Determining school attendance zones. • Establishing charter school requirements. • Setting requirements for class size. • Determining student graduation, promotion and retention policies.

School finance and facilities

• Providing the vast majority of funding for public education. • Determining education financing systems, budgets, and taxing policies. • Supporting construction and renovation of school facilities. • Setting rules for use of school facilities.

Education Commission of the States, 2002, 2008, 2010.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 304 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.5 Federalism, the Policy Process, and Educational Reform CHAPTER 9

The federal government’s limited role in education results in restricted funding to states and school districts. Such funding, even with NCLB’s and the Obama administration’s financial measures supporting education, has never exceeded 10% of the total costs of elementary and secondary education and 15% of the costs of higher education (Dye, 2013) (see Figure 9.4). As such, most funding for public schools is provided by state and local school districts, which results in large disparities in funding from state to state. This arrangement is perhaps the real source of the crisis in U.S. public education, because state and local governments have insufficient resources to provide the comprehensive reform required for meaningful change in the educational system.

Figure 9.4: Federal funding for elementary and secondary education, 2010

Most funding for public schools comes from the state and from local school districts.

Adapted from National Center for Education Statistics, 2008–2009.

Among school systems, three kinds of funding disparity exist. First, education funding var- ies from state to state. For example, in 2009–2010 New Jersey spent an average $13,833 per student while California spent $8,452 per student (California Department of Education, 2011; Calefati & Rundquist, 2011). The wealthier states simply have greater fiscal capacity.

Next, disparities in educational funding occur within states; some school districts spend much more than other districts in the same state. In California’s 2009–2010 school year, the Carmel district in Northern California spent nearly 3 times what the Norris district in Bakersfield spent (California Department of Education, 2011). In New Jersey, for that same school year, Newark spent $18,894 per student; the Westfield district spent $12,009 per student; and the Chatham district spent $11,861 per student (Calefati & Rundquist, 2011). Funding variations at the local level occur because the local financing of education is usually based on property taxes.

Federal ($58,433 billion) State ($285,392 billion) Local ($267,029 billion)

46%

44%

10%

Total U.S. Funding ($610,853 billion)

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 305 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Section 9.5 Federalism, the Policy Process, and Educational Reform CHAPTER 9

Public Education Spending People might try to pinpoint one thing wrong with public education, such as spending, but it is much more complicated. The average American believes that the government spends about $4,000 per child when in fact it spends $10,000 per child. Michelle Rhee, founder and leader of the New Teacher Project, talks about education in the United States in this TED Talk video: http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=RsiLLNzi-cM.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. What is the special interest problem, according to Michelle Rhee, and the idea behind students first?

2. Based on the evidence, do we need to invest more in schools or not? 3. When it comes to spending, what do the two anecdotes about spending and transporting stu-

dents in Washington, D.C., say about the failings of public education?

Finally, disparities in educational funding exist within school districts. The amount that a district allocates to each of its schools varies, based on factors such as teacher pay and student achievement.

Besides disparities in funding, the decentralized system results in uncoordinated policy making at the state and local level regarding the number of school districts in each state, specific education goals, spending levels, maintenance of the curriculum, and so on. The Goals 2000, America 2000, and Race to the Top programs represent the federal govern- ment’s attempts to circumvent decentralization. By offering grants and subsidies to the states, local communities, and schools that adopt federally advocated models, the federal government attempts to influence policy via economic incentive. But not everyone agrees that a more centralized system is the way to reform. For example, supporters of the 2001 NCLB Act argue that the law encourages reform by returning public education to greater local control. The act attempts to cut federal red tape and to reduce the number of educa- tion programs in favor of creating larger, more flexible programs that enable decisions at the local level. In other words, supporters contend, NCLB is an educational policy estab- lished at the federal level that decentralizes educational authority.

Another issue in the debate regarding more or less decentralization is that with decen- tralized decision making, policy makers have difficulty monitoring policy outcomes effi- ciently, particularly in regard to national education goals. The inability to observe policy outcomes in schools, districts, and states affects the agenda in a number of ways. For example, should policy makers and educators use measurements such as standardized testing, attrition rates, or quality of teachers as demonstrated by their qualifications? Such questions dominate the measurement debate. The problem is that no one can guarantee that one measure is better than another. Also, because of great variations among schools and geographic regions, no solution fits all schools or districts. However, taxpayers still demand accountability, and a decentralized educational policy-making process allows for more involvement in education decision making by educators and citizens.

As these debates illustrate, the complex problem of education reform in the United States is far from being resolved.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 306 11/21/12 1:00 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsiLLNzi-cM

Section 9.6 Instruments Used to Implement Education Policy CHAPTER 9

9.6 Instruments Used to Implement Education Policy

Policy makers in the United States have used several instruments to achieve educa-tion policy outcomes. The most common is direct provision of services, in which governments partially fund free primary and secondary education that is open to all. Another instrument is the private provision of education, or schooling that is funded and run by private entities but still subject to compliance with government standards. Even though the private provision of education is growing, with around 11% of school age children enrolled in private schools, most U.S. children are still educated in public schools (see Table 9.7).

Table 9.7: Elementary and secondary education enrollment, 1980–2012 (in thousands)

Year 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012*

Total 58,306 60,683 65,021 68,685 72,674 75,285 75,633

Public 50,335 52,061 55,933 58,956 62,135 64,231 64,665

Private 7,971 8,622 9,087 9,729 10,539 11,054 10,968

*Projected US Census 2012 Statistical Abstract, Table 219.

The federal government also uses three additional instruments—rules, incentives, and pow- ers—to achieve its goals for education. Through its rules, the federal government specifies teacher qualifications, curriculum, attendance eligibility, special service eligibility, and graduation requirements. Policy makers use incentives to encourage local authorities to fulfill objectives. For example, the Clinton administration used economic incentives to ensure local compliance with Goals 2000 objectives. Finally, powers grants individuals, groups, or entities the authority to make decisions or choices. An example of a powers- based policy is a parental choice program, which enables parents of students in failing schools to place their children in a different public school or charter school. Education’s role as an increasingly prominent item on the U.S. policy agenda has prompted a variety of federal legislative initiatives, especially within the last 60 years (see Table 9.8).

Table 9.8: Major federal legislation that has affected education policy

Year Legislation

1896 Plessy v. Ferguson

1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

1958 National Defense Education Act

1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act

1974 Equal Educational Opportunities Act

1994 Goals 2000: Educate America Act

2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 307 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Key Points to Remember CHAPTER 9

Summary

In the last decade education reform in the United States has become an increasingly heated issue on the public agenda. Competing political ideologies underscore the ten-sion between a centralized versus decentralized approach to the problem. A wide- spread belief that better education is the solution to inequalities in social and economic standing makes access to it a central factor in the issue. In addition, the question of the kinds and quality of education available—as well as how to fund it—remains a source of considerable discussion.

Public perception of a national crisis in education standards persists, even as varied interests—parents, educators, industry, voters, unions, and policy actors—attempt to define the problem and its solution. The multiple streams model of policy agenda setting can help to illustrate how an issue becomes entrenched in the policy agenda.

Key Points to Remember

• Policy actors and the public have a perception of falling education standards in the United States.

• Early criticisms of the U.S. education system came from the business community; these criticisms in turn tapped into growing public concerns about the deteriorat- ing quality of public schools.

• Critics charge that U.S. students’ skills, abilities, and aptitudes are less than those of students in other industrialized nations, and the result is workers who are ill-prepared, leading to a concern over America’s future competitiveness in the global marketplace. Such arguments rest on educational results as measured by standardized achievement tests.

• An increasingly supported proposed policy solution is the increased introduction of market forces in the form of school vouchers as well as alternative sources of public education, such as charter schools.

• Despite well-defined goals, efforts such as America 2000 and Goals 2000 changed little in the U.S. educational system.

• NCLB was a major change to existing education policy. It attempted to stimulate reform by making students, teachers, schools, and districts accountable.

• Education policy at the national level is still largely symbolic policy. Many prob- lems exist at all levels of the public education system, and disparities exist among states and districts.

• Proponents of more centralized public education argue that government over- sight will help coordinate policy making and make tracking results easier.

• Decentralization of decision making in the education policy arena has played a significant role in defining access to educational services. Without doubt, the viability and efficiency of public education regionally have been affected by the fact that states are responsible for public education funding, with some states spending considerably more per student in public schools than other states (Heidenheimer, Heclo, & Adams, 1990).

• The decentralization of education underscores socioeconomic and cultural differ- ences from state to state (NCES, 1999). To compensate for this inequity, the federal government retains the right to intervene whenever state education decisions or policies are deemed to benefit outside interests and not the public interest.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 308 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Key Terms CHAPTER 9

Key Terms

America 2000 plan A national plan for school reform proposed by the George H. W. Bush administration in 1991 that advo- cated national standards of student per- formance and called for the evaluation of local schools through public report cards and better teacher preparation.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka The 1954 Supreme Court ruling that held that educational segregation— specifically, separate-but-equal educational facilities for African Americans—was unconstitutional.

centralized educational system An approach to education in which the federal government has educational decision- making authority.

Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education A commission appointed by the National Education Association of the United States in 1918 that advocated educating the masses to be productive members of the labor force. Congress was prompted to implement federal funding for vocational education programs stipulated by principles identi- fied by the commission.

decentralized educational system An approach to education in which the federal government delegates educational decision- making authority to state and local governments.

direct provision of services Free pri- mary and secondary education open to all that is partially funded by the federal government.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Legislation prompted by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and War on Poverty that earmarked $1.5 billion in federal aid for remedial course work, research, and instructional materials for the nation’s poorest schools.

excellence movement An intensive approach to education inspired by the 1983 report A Nation at Risk that aimed to intro- duce academic rigor to the nation’s public schools.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act Legisla- tion enacted during the Clinton adminis- tration in 1994 that established national education goals and voluntary national performance standards and that autho- rized funding for states that agreed to comply with such standards.

Head Start Program A program created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty that provides cultural enrichment to preschool children from low-income families.

A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Edu- cational Reform A 1983 National Com- mission on Excellence in Education report that claimed U.S. public education was in a state of crisis and that vigorous reform of the system was necessary to prepare U.S. workers for the new global competitive marketplace.

National Defense Education Act of 1958 Legislation prompted by the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik that provided funding for math, science, and foreign- language education programs and a renewed focus on academic excellence rather than real-world skills.

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 309 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions CHAPTER 9

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) Educational legislation enacted during the George W. Bush administration that redefined the federal government’s role in education and attempted to stimu- late reform by making students, teachers, schools, and districts accountable.

private provision of education Education funded and run by private entities subject to compliance of government standards.

Promise Neighborhoods grants pro- gram Public program implemented by the Obama administration in 2010 that provides youth in identified Promise Neighborhoods with effective schools and parent- and community-support networks that provide an excellent educational experience and help with the transition to college.

public provision of education Education funded, controlled, or run by the federal government. In the United States the public provision of education is limited to providing funding to states and school districts.

Race to the Top program A public pro- gram initiated in 2009 by the Obama administration that allows states to com- pete for federal grants based on their meeting certain criteria and whose goals include the successful turnaround of poorly performing schools and districts, the implementation of teacher evaluation systems, and common K–12 teaching stan- dards linked to student achievement.

school vouchers Grants paid as stipends to parents to use to pay private school fees.

uniform standards and greater account- ability Education reform trends in the early 1980s based on the belief that aca- demic achievement can improve when rigorous education standards, uniform cur- ricula, and assessment tests are imposed.

utilitarian approach to education Educat- ing the masses to be productive members of the labor force.

White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics An agency within the Department of Education whose role is to provide more opportuni- ties for Hispanic Americans to participate in federal education programs.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Can and should politics be kept out of education policy making? 2. What are the goals of public education? In your opinion, what should be the

goals of a public education system? 3. Should parents in any way pay for their children’s elementary or secondary edu-

cation? How so, or why not?

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 310 11/21/12 1:00 PM

Applied Internet Exercises CHAPTER 9

Applied Internet Exercices: Education Policy 1. Congratulations! You have just been appointed the lead advisor to the 2013 Special Commis-

sion for 21st-Century Education Reform. Your initial task and challenge is to explain the chal- lenges of education reform—specifically the problem, policy, and politics—in a briefing memo that includes both written and video explanations of these three dynamics. Use YouTube or Google to find the right video for each dynamic or memo section. Remember to use videos from credible sources (experts, media, think tanks, politicians, etc.) and not simply random individuals. Prepare a four- to five-page memo divided into three main sections—problem, pol- icy, and politics. As refresher, be sure to read up on Kingdon’s multiple streams theory (Chap- ters 3 and 4) to help guide you. Your memo should be broken down as follows: a. Introduction: Brief explanation of the purpose of the memo, etc. b. Main sections:

i. Problem stream: Experts identify many factors as “problems” in improving U.S. schools and education. Your task is to identify what you believe—based on your research—are the top three factors. For each problem, find videos of experts or other relevant actors that reinforce your conclusion of why the factors you identify are problems facing edu- cation. (Be sure to find a video for each problem.)

ii. Policy stream: Discuss the solutions to the problems you identify. Many often present themselves; you need to identify the best solution for each of the three problems.

• For each problem you identify, research the best policy solution. • Videos—you do NOT need to link to videos in this section, but video(s) may be valuable in

explaining why these are the right solutions. iii. Politics stream: Politics—at the local, state, and federal levels—plagues education

reform. Explain the political challenges facing your stated policy solutions. Include video(s) that explain to your fellow commission members how politics affects educa- tion reform, now and in future.

c. Conclusion: Present a brief summary of your findings and conclusion 2. You have just been invited to present at the new TEDYOU conference. Using the Michelle Rhee

video as a template, your challenge is to prepare a short (5-minute) video presentation based on your Memo on the Multiple Streams of Education Reform. Feel free to employ any video recording capability you have—(e.g. camera phone/video, video camera, computer video cam- era, etc.), but aim for the best possible video quality. Remember, you will be judged on both style and substance. Be creative, and keep in mind that the goal is to keep your audience inter- ested in your findings (so reading your results into the camera will not cut it).

the80472_09_c09_283-312.indd 311 11/21/12 1:00 PM