Education Case Study Background Essay
Federalism Case Study: Education and Schools
The United States has a system of government divided into three different levels—local, state, and national. The relationship among these levels of government is called federalism. Federalism is grounded in the principle that government should be responsive to the needs of the people it governs. To do this most effectively, the national, state, and local governments balance several shared and separate powers. As these needs change, the scope of authority often changes. When this occurs, the different levels of government may each attempt to control the exercise of authority.
The practical result of sharing power over certain areas of American life, such as schools and education, can often cause tension. Different people and groups have divergent views on which level of government is best equipped to address a problem or issue.
Americans value equal educational opportunities for good citizenship and advancement in a free society. Americans also share a desire for educated and virtuous citizens for self-government. Parents want their children to succeed. Businesses want an educated workforce, and a prosperous economy depends upon it. Communities want to enjoy a reputation for excellence in education and having educated, knowledgeable citizens. There are many different approaches that attempt to achieve these goals, which often leads to passionate political debates.
Schools and education are generally a responsibility of state governments and local communities. However, the national government has been involved in education for a long time. One of the first acts of the First Congress in 1789 was to reaffirm the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that encouraged schools and education. In 1862, during the Civil War, Congress passed the Morrill Land Grant College Act, which established several American universities. Congress also provided educational benefits for returning service members who served in World War II with the G.I. Bill. In 1958, during the Space Race, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to spend more money to promote science, math, and engineering education and established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as part of his Great Society program to expand opportunities for all Americans. As a result, national education spending quickly increased into the billions.
In recent years, the federal government has become more involved in local schools—not just in funding but in setting curricula and testing standards. In 2002, the George W. Bush Administration won congressional approval for its No Child Left Behind (NCLB) bill. The law sought to improve failing schools and equalize opportunity by setting national testing standards and providing schools with billions of dollars in federal aid.
The Obama Administration (2009-2017) implemented Common Core national standards and measured teacher performance by test scores. Congress passed the administration’s education bill, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The law tried to give some flexibility and innovation to local schools, but still sought to hold schools to high standards of excellence, set testing standards, and hold schools to higher standards.
There was general public consensus that there was a problem in education but there was also concern about whether this problem was best addressed at the national level. Laws such as the ESSA angered many teachers who resented “teaching to the test” and having distant bureaucrats telling them what to teach. Some local school districts thought the standards were impossibly high and that they were being treated as scapegoats when they were unable to reach the new goals. Schools wanted the federal money but not the strings attached.
How does the constitutional principle of federalism apply to this issue? The states and local communities are responsible for schools, standards, policies, and curricula. Sometimes the implementation of these responsibilities can lead to very different outcomes because of the differences of culture and values across local communities. Varying implementation can also lead to inequalities in disadvantaged areas compared with other districts and states. These disparities can affect future educational and economic opportunities for students in lower-achieving schools.
However, federal spending often means greater federal control and mandates to take certain actions. Schools and teachers may not want distant politicians and bureaucrats telling them how to teach. They want to develop lessons and teach topics most relevant to the communities in which they live. They also want to respond to local needs and individual students rather than having a one-size-fits-all national approach to their instruction. Federalism principles may be implemented to reflect a respect for diversity and pluralism across states and communities.
All Americans believe in the importance of education to create informed citizens. The question is which level of government is best suited to make decisions on curricula and standards for schools in local communities.