Federalism, Equity and Accountability in Education

• Kenneth K. Wong

• Turgay OZKAN

1/29

income inequality,

racial/ethnic disparities and

the urban environment in society

60 % of the students One third of enrollment Growing Latino populationDropout problems

Introduction

2/29

Decentralization is clearly prevalent in public education, where

power and decisions are dispersed among 50 states and 15,000

districts.

Introduction

3/29

The tension between decentralization and inequity constitutes a

central concern in the discipline of political science.

1. The US constitution recognizes the rights of the states

to handle their own affairs, including public education,

2. There is pressing public responsibility to address the

needs of those who are less fortunate.

Introduction

4/29

the evolution of the federal role

evolving theories of intergovernmental relations

Introduction

5/29

From Dual Federalism to Marble Cake Federalism

Layer Cake Federalism:Federal government ---> permissive role

Constitution ----> “enumerated powers”

A line of demarcation between the federal government and the states

Public education was primarily an obligation internal to the state.

6/29

From Dual Federalism to Marble Cake Federalism

1960s and 1970s ---> Federal involvement in education sharply increased

- Post-WW II G.I. Bill- 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,

Kansas- 1958 National Defense Education Act- 1964 Civil Rights Act

1965 ---> a major antipoverty education program, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

7/29

Marble Cake Federalism:

National and subnational governments

share responsibilities in the domestic

arena.

- Creation of a complex

intergovernmental policy system

- To avoid centralization of administrative

power at the national level, the

From Dual Federalism to Marble Cake Federalism

congress increased its intergovernmental transfers to finance state

and local activities.

8/29

Marble Cake Federalism:

By the end of Jimmy Carter Administration ---->

500 federally funded categorical programs

- To promote racial desegregation

- Protect the educational rights of the

handicapped

- Assist English language learners

- Provide supplemental resources to children

from at risk backgrounds

From Dual Federalism to Marble Cake Federalism

9/29

Federal engagement in

redistributive policy is evident in

its contribution to the overall

education spending.

1996-2003 $7600 to $9000

per pupil spending

From Dual Federalism to Marble Cake Federalism

10/29

During the 32 year

period (1970-

2002): from 36% to

63% of the total

federal spending in

elementary and

secondary schools.

From Dual Federalism to Marble Cake Federalism

11/29

Institutional characteristics:

- Grants-in-aid arrangement

- Categorical or single purpose grants

- Supplementary and nonsupplanting guidelines

- Bipartisan support

- Incentives for local government to meet antipoverty objectives

From Dual Federalism to Marble Cake Federalism

12/29

Political challenge in the mid-1990s.

Republicans gained majority in Congress

in forty years.

Newt Gingrich :

federal gov. ---> the major cause of

poverty,

The New Politics of Performance-Based Federalism

federal bureaucracy ---> major source of waste of taxpayers’

dollars,

private sector ---> the solution to social inequality.

13/29

1994 – Improving America’s School Act ---> beginning of federal efforts to address accountability in its antipoverty program.2001 – NCLB --> broadened federal involvement toward educational accountability for all children- Annual testing of students- Highly qualified teachers- Corrective actions- The law enables parents to take their children out of failing schools- Legislative intent in closing the achievement gaps among

racial/ethnic subgroupsTo support these efforts --> fed. Gov. resources --> by $1.7 billon

The New Politics of Performance-Based Federalism

14/29

The redistributed goals have relied on federal funding, but support from state and local agencies has been mixed.

Intergovernmental studies:

1. Period of policy formation

2. The federal grants-in-aid system

3. Accountability and innovation

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

15/29

First perspective --> late 1960s and the 1970s --> period of policy formation

- Compensatory education- Busing programs to achieve integration- Job training - Employment programs in economically depressed

communities

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

16/29

Federal Title I funds were being used for- general school purposes,- to initiate system-wide programs,- to buy books and supplies for all school children in the system,- to pay general overhead and operating expenses,- to meet new teacher contracts which call for higher salaries.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

17/29

They often found confusion, conflict and failure to meet national social objectives.

Federal resources set aside for at-risk populations often failed to go to the intended beneficiaries.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

18/29

Second perspective --> the federal grants-in-aid system

As the federal government increasingly clarifies its

antipoverty intent, state and local agencies seem more ready to

meet programmatic standards.

Two major implementation patterns:

1. Conflict often occurred in redistributive programs.

2. Local and state agencies were also reluctant to change their

practices in light of the federal focus.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

19/29

Third perspective --> to focus on accountability and innovation

Intergovernmental system began to institutionalize its operational

routines.

NCLB act of 2001 elevated performance-based accountability to

the nation-wide agenda that applies to all students and all school.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

20/29

Research offers two competing approaches;

1. First, NCLB grants state and local agencies substantial

authority in monitoring school progress and taking corrective

actions to turn around failing schools.

2. The second approach looks for ‘market-like’ mechanisms to

improve education.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

21/29

First approach: The challenge of capacity building

NCLB requires school districts to fully document measurable

gaps among subgroups within school. Schools that were seen as

academically successful prior to NCLB would have difficulty in

meeting the AYP benchmarks for subgroup achievement.

States have chosen several methods to ensure that students

reach proficiency;

- Equal yearly goals approach,

- The steady stair-step approach

- Accelerating curve approach

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

22/29

AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) deficiencies:

- AYP does not rely on ‘value-added’ assessment on students and school

progress.

- It does not indicate the amount of academic improvement students in a

school may make over the course of an academic year.

- For school that have a lower percentage of students meeting

proficiency, the ‘status model’ for monitoring adequate yearly progress

may seem unrealistic.

- The AYP also does not take into consideration the changing school

population and student mobility from one year to the other.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

23/29

In light of these potential limitations, the US Department of

Education has begun to consider using growth models in states

where longitudinal student level achievement data is available.

School districts are turning to external organizations to help

building the data analytic infrastructure.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

24/29

NCLB poses new challenge to urban leadership to broaden its civic

support for public school reform.

Parental engagement is another area for civic support. When

schools do fail, parents have the right to transfer their children to

higher-performing schools.

There was some implementation problems. The plaintiffs argued

that NCLB imposed federal mandates without adequate financial

support.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

25/29

Second Approach: Efforts to expand school choice

Low performing, inner city schools have been the target of

charter schools and experimental vouchers, where the latter

enable parents to move their children from low performing

public schools to better performing public and non-public

schools.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

26/29

Second Approach: Efforts to expand school choice

Arguably the most recent and politically visible development is

the federal demonstration program in school vouchers in

Washington DC.

Eligible students ---> income level fell within 185% of the poverty line. (district of Columbia)

In the first year, 1848 eligible applicants received vouchers.7 of 10 came from public school.A randomized lottery was conducted.In the first year evaluation, they scored better in reading and

mathematics test then others.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

27/29

Federal government intends to support the use of vouchers as a

school reform strategy.

This particular initiative was facilitated by several factors.

First, the legislation stated that the DC public schools would

be “held harmless” and that departing students (i.e. voucher users)

would not result in financial loss for the district.

Second, the experimental nature of the program tends the

limit the allotment of vouchers.

Finally, the unsatisfactory academic performance of the DC

public schools called for more drastic actions.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

28/29

Conclusion: Federalism beyond NCLB

Intergovernmental system will have to consider several policy

option.

First, what is the appropriate level of federal financial support to

enable students and schools to meet the NCLB expectations?

Second, accountability-based politics has been facilitated by

‘issue expansion’ in education among governors, mayors and

state high courts.

Policy implementation: conflict and accommodation

29/29