Education is one of the major forces behind any country's socio-economic development. In the United States, education has always acted as the most effective equalizer. This has been the case through concerted efforts by various administrations in enacting education policies that are keen to improve the quality and equity of education as we know it. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 heralded policies and legislation targeting education that eventually led to the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. All these efforts have been focused on ensuring that the American populace enjoys equal opportunity when it comes to education.
President Lyndon B. Johnson through his anti-poverty campaign launched the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 (Zangrando & Jeffrey, 1979). The act sought to scale the federal government's participation or stake in primary and secondary education. The bill focused on bridging the achievement gaps which was occasioned across America and different demographics. The funds were set aside for instructional materials, professional development, promotion of parental involvement and resources to support educational programs (Zangrando & Jeffrey, 1979). The act had far-reaching consequences as schools recorded high student turn out as well as increased access to facilities to support the educators. After every five years, the government reauthorized the bill. It is in these instances that some amendments were incorporated in the act.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In 1969, the ESEA underwent its first revision under President Richard Nixon. Nixon sought to ensure that the Act funded the programs targeting the refugee children and children that lived in low-cost public housing. This was keen on ensuring that even the most vulnerable children could be empowered to access education. The amendments also focused on the uniformity of the funding extended to schools. The Reagan administration made further amendments through the "Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) in 1981 to reduce federal regulations for Title I” (Zangrando & Jeffrey, 1979). This was critical to the administration that perceived it much better for funds to be in the local jurisdictions and states rather than the federal government.
In 1984 further amendments were introduced to encourage bilingual education under the Emergency Immigration Education Act of 1984 (Paul, 2016). This was captured in the allocation of funds to enhance bilingual services and the needs of English language instruction. In 1984 another amendment was made targeting the female gender. Dubbed Women's Educational Equity Amendments, the changes were focused on ensuring that all genders had equitable access to education (Zangrando & Jeffrey, 1979). It was observed that many girls and women were disadvantaged when it came to education and other related services.
The reauthorization of federal education law has been pinpointed to have not adequately addressed student outcomes. This is because all of the amendments and restructuring of the policies have solely targeted funding and expansion of infrastructure. For instance, Title I of the ESEA focused on the distribution of the financing across different schools. It was established as the most significant fraction of funding at 5/6 of the total kitty extended to the ESEA (Heise, 2017). In the reauthorization, there were no follow up mechanisms to establish whether the funding changed the patterns for student turn over and achievement across different states. The reauthorization dubbed Title I was central in bridging the skill gap in the essential components of literacy such as reading, writing, and arithmetic "for children from low-income households who attend urban or rural school systems and children from the middle-class who attend suburban school systems" (Paul, 2016). The reauthorizations also faced hurdles and opposition hence affecting the ability to address student outcomes. For instance, the government had to ensure pressure from groups that were opposed to the federal aid. This was understandable given that America was founded on capitalist ideals.
Additionally, other issues such as race, religion, money and federal-local ties diluted the purposes of the reauthorizations as well as the possibility of restructuring them to address the student outcomes in different capacities. However, the recent reauthorizations such as 2001 No Child Left Behind were vocal on how best to enhance accountability in schools based on achievement bars (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002). The reauthorization saw the emergence of standardized tests which were important in guiding the conversation surrounding student achievement and outcomes. The NCLB also demanded "teachers to be highly qualified if hired” to ensure that they could deliver when it comes to student achievement (Heise, 2017).
In respect to Every Student Succeeds Act established in 2015, there were crucial points touched on for accountability purposes. The government was keen on ascertaining that all the funds and support extended to schools and local governments were meeting the expected deliverables. According to the ESSA, four accountability factors ought to be considered (Heise, 2017). Reading and math test scores are focused one being the basic blocks of literacy in any education system. States and school boards review the test scores of individual schools to establish that the student outcome was positive even after the ESSA boost. The scores go a long way in creating avenues for the more significant discussions and strategizing by educators on how best to improve the learning experience and student outcomes.
The next point is access to and completion of the current advanced coursework. A school must prove that its learners have managed to complete the coursework as set by the syllabus. The completion must also follow the existing timelines to ensure that learners can synthesize or process course content. The third point is the high school graduation rates which are a measure of how effective the school manages its learners from the start to the completion of the course (Heise, 2017). The high school graduation rates are an indicator of positive school outcomes which means more students are joining colleges and other tertiary institutions. Lastly, a state-chosen academic measure for grade and middle schools is the primary accountability measure that ESSA extends to different schools (Heise, 2017). The federal government understands that each state has its unique approach to specific issues. Thus, the chosen academic measure such as General Point Average (GPA) of individual students may be used to evaluate how well the learner has fared in the course of the learning experience.
The ESSA is majorly successful due to its funding which mostly emanates from the federal government. There exists a block grant that is disbursed across all schools depending on their needs and the unique operational context. In 2015 during the reauthorization of ESSA by President Obama the district schools across the country got $1.6 billion block grant which went to various initiatives such as suicide prevention, science initiatives, learning facilities et cetera (Heise, 2017). The block grants took the education funds to the sole custody of the states that are also expected to supplement the shortfalls to ensure that the ESSA objectives are met. The funding comes with stringent terms for instance districts are expected to use at least 20% of the funds "on efforts to improve student mental and behavioral health or school safety.
The ESSA, NCLB, and ESEC all present distinct features when it comes to the role of state and local education leaders. The ESSA has limited the federal government’s participation in the elementary and secondary education (Heise, 2017). In this case, the state and district leaders are expected to establish educational standards that students ought to be held to. The standards must take into consideration the unique environment that each state and district schools thrive in. On arriving at the standards, the state and local officials are expected to present them to the US Department of Education which must avail additional feedback and thereafter approve. The states and district leadership are also expected to establish ways to manage cases of low performing schools. This is because they can easily assess each school individually and hold their management accountable.
The NCLB, on the other hand, saw the federal government taking a domineering role from oversight on the disbursement of funds to achieving set targets by the local and state schools. Through the Adequate Yearly Progress initiative, the local and state leadership was pushed to ensure schools performed. Through standardized tests, the federal government could easily evaluate the efforts exerted by the local leadership in various capacities (Heise, 2017). The ESEA, on the other hand, the federal government took a holistic role virtually diminishing the role of the local and state leadership on matters education. The federal government oversaw the distribution of funds to schools and school districts. The local and state leadership implemented the terms set by the federal government in accordance with the act. This included recruiting qualified teachers, initiating support services for students in order to bridge the skills gap and enhancing student achievement.
In conclusion, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) saw the establishment of a forefront approach to fighting poverty through education. The policy led to much attention being laid upon schools and the education systems in place. Through the various reauthorizations of the act by different administrations, education has enjoyed a shift from quantitative initiatives to more qualitative ones such as those afforded by NCLB and ESSA. The reauthorizations continuously factor in amendments to meet new educational challenges as they arise.
References
Heise, M. (2017). From No Child Left Behind to Every Student Succeeds: Back to a Future for Education Federalism. Columbia Review , 2 (1), 11-32. doi:10.31228/osf.io/kdfje
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability Systems: Implications of Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher , 31 (6), 3-16. doi:10.3102/0013189x031006003
Paul, C. A. (2016). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Retrieved from https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/education/elementary-and-secondary-education-act-of-1965/
Zangrando, R. L., & Jeffrey, J. R. (1979). Education for Children of the Poor: A Study of the Origins and Implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The Journal of American History , 65 (4), 1196. doi:10.2307/1894661
