Strong Federal Policies Benefit Local Districts

Abstract

Recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of their position can help federal policy makers make the most of their capabilities and, in the process, help states and localities make the most of theirs. Uncle Sam has expanded his reach into the nation's schools during the last five decades. Those forays frequently have been motivated by concerns over educational equity and a growing interest in promoting academic excellence. An overall working assumption has been that federal prodding and assistance could help encourage states and localities to better meet these two overarching needs. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The pending reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, the latest amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), provides an opportunity to pause, reflea, and adjust current policies based on their track records. To help inform that reauthorization and other federal efforts, this article offers some generalizations based on a lengthy review of research on major federal programs that address disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and teacher quality. The specific federal programs considered were Title I of the ESEA; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its predecessor law, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act; and two efforts to improve teacher quality, the Eisenhower Professional Development Program and NCLB's highly qualified teacher provisions. At least four broad observations and four recommendations seem reasonable based on the performance of those major federal programs. OBSERVATION #1 Federal education policies have made positive contributions, but they usually fall short of reaching their ambitious goals. Through Title I and IDEA, for example, disadvantaged students and students with disabilities have received more attention. Those laws and federal teacher-quality efforts have also influenced the development of state academic standards, testing systems, and teacher preparation strategies. Still, achievement gaps remain, disadvantaged students tend to perform at very low levels, and the quality of standards, tests, and teaching are highly variable across the country. So, overall goals have not been met. Perhaps that result says as much about the nation's politics as it does about the effectiveness of federal efforts. In order to sell their policies to one another and the public, elected officials frequently offer lofty and arguably unattainable goals, such as making the nation the best in the in math and science or guaranteeing that all will be proficient in reading and math by a certain date. Those sorts of promises are likely to persist, given the incentives to which politicians respond. Few would enthusiastically endorse a platform to make the nation sixth in the world in math and science or a promise that 85% of children will not be left behind. In private, though, many officials would likely agree that accomplishing those two goals would be a marked improvement over the current situation. OBSERVATION #2 More federal involvement in K-12 education has provided students and teachers with important opportunities or guarantees while contributing to a complex and fragmented regulatory environment. Helping students with disabilities gain access to regular public schools has been a major accomplishment of IDEA. ESEA funding has provided states, districts, and schools with important supplemental dollars to support disadvantaged students and train or recruit teachers. Those positives have been accompanied by greater complexity and often by individual program silos that aren't well integrated with each other or with state and local programs. In using federal policy to leverage state and district strengths, national policy makers haven't always fully considered how their initiatives will mesh with the complicated and, at times, conflicting web of existing requirements. …