The impact of the political context on education is of particular interest to researchers aiming to study the implications of governmental policies on academic performance and the quality of education. Undoubtedly, the successful development of young people and the nation as a whole largely depends on access to education and resources. Human capital should be viewed as a valuable asset that can contribute to the social and economic development of a country. At the same time, investment is required to ensure relevant support to education for disadvantaged children and provide equal treatment to all students. This paper focuses on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as a governmental policy vital for the educational processes in the United States.
Since the ESEA was signed into law, it has become a critical tool in defining educational standards and directing federal funding. At the same time, various challenges should be discussed with regard to the development and implementation of the policy. This paper discusses the historical and political context, the selecting scale, the strategic execution, and the communication to communities of interest of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Furthermore, the impact of the policy and its compliance with the original objectives are evaluated throughout this essay. Finally, the effectiveness and effects of the ESEA are analyzed. It can be concluded that despite its structural limitations and challenges defined by the political context, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is an essential federal education policy marked by positive implications for funding for K-12 education, learning outcomes, and poverty issues.
The political context shapes society in numerous ways, particularly by impacting the barriers and opportunities for access to education, as well as learning outcomes. At the same time, academic achievement is a major factor that contributes to the successful development of young people and society as a whole, namely, by improving human capital, productivity, and the living standards of the nation. As schooling has become an integral part of people’s lives, improving education quality is essential to uplift the social and economic conditions of the country. With this fact in mind, one can observe that governmental policies and events are of particular importance to education reforms. Such a connection suggests the need for studying the progress in education quality and access with regard to a specific policy and its implications for the learning opportunities and outcomes of students. This paper aims to explore the development and analyze the impact and effectiveness of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as a critical governmental policy on education.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) refers to a federal education policy authorizing the budget for K-12 public education and outlining the requirements for states to fulfill in order to receive funding. Further, state legislatures determine the way to meet the federal policy standards and define academic requirements to improve students’ performance. The ESEA guides schools, districts, and states on the basis of a fair approach aiming to provide equal learning opportunities. In particular, programs are implemented with the intention to assist struggling learners and address the challenges that many students face as a result of mobility problems, disability, poverty, learning difficulties, or language barrier.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
The development of the ESEA can be viewed as a result of the expanding needs of the growing American population and increased school enrollments in the second half of the 20th century. Eliminating poverty was an acute issue, and the establishment of the federal role in academic policy funding was considered an essential step towards a better society. Historically, education in the United States had been marked by a lack of federal control and constitutional authority, which prevented the creation of education policy in the states until the 1960s (McGuinn, 2015). Nevertheless, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the ESEA in 1965, demonstrating the act’s long-lasting commitment to ensure equal opportunities for all students (Hakuta, 2017). The industrial revolution and the progressive accomplishments of that era identified the need for improved public education and cost allocation.
While programs providing limited aid to educational institutions were launched, there was a lack of general support, which emphasized the need for federal involvement in school policy and funding. Thus, the ESEA became an essential shift in the country’s federalism (Hakuta, 2017). As claimed by McGuinn (2015), “the grant-in-aid system” was used by national policymakers to achieve federal goals with regard to education and students’ outcomes (p. 77). It should be noted that the ESEA has been reauthorized since its initial development, which has complicated the funding mechanisms and increased the bureaucracy required to implement a program.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act can be considered a large-scale policy since it influenced the education opportunities for students. As Gamson et al. (2015) argued, this law was an essential part of Johnson’s “war on poverty” (p. 4). In particular, students from low-income households were enabled to get better access to education, resources, and instructional materials, while educational programs offered were increased to provide more diverse training. Overall, the ESEA targeted state and local agencies by setting requirements for implementing educational programs. The federal criteria allowed for creating equal opportunities for disadvantaged students while providing space for more jobs serving children and promoting academic outcomes.
Impact of the Policy
The impact of the policy should be discussed with regard to its objective. Originally, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act aimed to address the challenges posed by the lack of a centralized system of federal requirements for education. According to Gamson et al. (2015), Johnson believed that the legislation intended to “bridge the gap between helplessness and hope for more than 5 million educationally deprived children” (p. 3). At the same time, the political context and major players involved in this process have contributed to the development of a complicated structure. Gamson et al. (2015) report that gradually, the government took on new functions and challenges, such as “dropout prevention, funding for children with disabilities, bilingual education programs, the addition of 3,600 new school libraries and 2,200 new education projects outside the classroom, and regional laboratories for basic educational research (p. 3). According to Casalaspi (2017), “the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was one of the most significant legislative accomplishments in twentieth-century American politics” (p. 247). Hence, it can be seen that the impact of the governmental policy was significant to the education system and large in scope.
Strategic Execution and the Communication of the Policy to Communities of Interest
The strategic execution and the communication of the ESEA to communities of interest constitute a basis for the successful implementation of the policy. To begin with, high standards were developed to provide equal access to education for all students and mandated in the act. As per Paul (2016), the appropriations of the ESEA “were to be carried out for five fiscal years”, and the act was reauthorized every five years since its ratification by the government (para. 1). The different subdivisions of the document are referred to as titles and provide a foundation for the communities of interest to implement the program. Each of the titles is dedicated to a certain objective, such as closing the skill gap, supporting libraries, improving school attendance, funding educational training and research, supplementing grants to state departments, and providing law-related limitations and definition (Donaldson et al., 2021). Based on the criteria, schools and districts can implement evidence-based strategies, interventions, and school activities to address the primary needs of the students and provide equal opportunities.
Effect and Effectiveness
The effectiveness of the ESEA can be evaluated in the retrospective with regard to educational outcomes and political context. As reported by Paul (2016), during the first five years since the policy’s enactment, certain “inherent issues regarding money, religion, race, and federal-state-local relations within the law, as predicted by the opponents of federal aid” were observed. The ESEA was signed into law with the hope of reforming school systems and reaching out to disadvantaged children once the funding was provided (Paul, 2016). However, the political climate altered, and national priorities changed, which prevented the policy from achieving the original rhetorical claims.
Nevertheless, the ESEA’s gains held significant value but required further improvement. In particular, federal administrators focused on controlling the administrative compliance and spending patterns of school districts since there was no agreement on the goals of public education (CSAI Update, 2019). As stated by McGuinn (2015), “large numbers of bureaucratic regulations were created during the 1970s without any kind of concomitant focus on student or school results,” which deterred the successful implementation of the program (p. 82). In other words, by emphasizing the process and procedure as the primary measurement tools, a shift occurred, preventing the ESEA from achieving the initial outcomes.
At the same time, the positive effects of the legislation can be seen as more effort was made to improve the quality of education. According to Paul (2016), President Richard Nixon signed the ESEA amendments in 1969, including increased spending on programs for low–rent public housing and refugee children, as well as improved access to education for students with disabilities. McGuinn (2015) reports that federal funding of elementary and secondary education continued to rise, and an increase “from $651 million to $9.5 billion in constant dollars” could be observed between 1958 and 1980 (p. 82). Furthermore, in 2001, the ESEA was reauthorized by President George W. Bush as the No Child Left Behind Act, and standardized tests allowed schools to measure performance against the achievement charts provided in Title I (Paul, 2016). Finally, the reauthorization of 2015 under President Barack Obama offered more flexibility to state agencies with regard to law provision (Paul, 2016). As can be seen, each politician set a trajectory for future amendment of the policy, sharping the educational outcomes.
To conclude, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act can be considered an essential legislative tool in implementing efficient and evidence-based strategies, interventions, and educational activities by districts and schools. The rigorous standards and criteria for providing funding encourage institutions to design and implement strategies aiming to improve access to education for disadvantaged children. At the same time, numerous challenges and potential risks arise for creating efficient approaches to education. Namely, the political context shapes the educational processes and defines the focus of policy. As can be seen, The ESEA was developed as a tool for eliminating poverty and assisting students who struggle with pursuing educational goals due to social, economic, and health-related circumstances. However, the initial lack of consensus prevented the Elementary and Secondary Education Act from fully achieving its potential and addressing the issue.
The governmental policy incorporated through the ESEA can be referred to as a large-scale experiment, which emphasizes the inevitability of mistakes. The power of the federal government was viewed as an essential factor capable of improving the lives of U.S. citizens. Namely, it was referred to as a critical instrument in the war on poverty and aimed to improve the nation’s living standards by addressing the academic and skills gaps and investing in human capital to enhance the country’s development. It should be noted that despite certain structural limitations of the policy, such as not strong enough state capacity to implement ambitious laws, it has contributed to a number of positive changes in the American educational system. In particular, educational finance and federal spending on K-12 education has increased. Furthermore, educational outcomes can be characterized as positive, especially with regard to students from low-income households. As to the impact on poverty, an increase in the U.S. workforce can be observed; however, political pressure for certain social and racial groups persists, and discriminative mechanisms still remain an acute issue to be addressed at various levels, apart from education.
Casalaspi, D. (2017). The making of a “legislative miracle”: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. History of Education Quarterly, 57(2), 247-277. Web.
Donaldson, M., Mavrogordato, M., Dougherty, S. M., Ghanem, R. Al, & Youngs, P. (2021). Principal evaluation under the Elementary and Secondary Every Student Succeeds Act: A comprehensive policy review. Education Finance and Policy, 16(2), 347-361. Web.
Gamson, D. A., McDermott, K. A., & Reed, D. S. (2015). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at fifty: Aspirations, effects, and limitations. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(3), 1-29. Web.
Hakuta, K. (2017). Commentary: Policy-impactful research to improve Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorizations into the future. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1S), 279S-281S. Web.
McGuinn, P. (2015). Schooling the state: ESEA and the evolution of the U.S. Department of Education. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(3), 77-94. Web.
Paul, C. A. (2016). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Social Welfare History Project. Web.