As the impeachment rancor subsides and Congress returns to a semblance of normalcy, public education will be a strategic issue for both political parties that will certainly carry into the fall 2000 elections. The debate will focus on the reauthorization of most federal elementary and secondary education programs, with the exception of vocational education and special education. And the outcome of this Congressional discussion will radically decide the federal role in public education for at least a decade.
Contradictions over Federal Involvement
We can expect Congress to struggle with what the U.S. public means when it says that education should be a priority. In 1979, when the U.S. Department of Education was chartered, Congress made stipulations to prevent the federal government from becoming overly involved in local school decision making. Since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed in 1965 to provide equitable learning opportunities for disadvantaged children, however, ESEA, which is currently known as the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), has evolved as a legislative catch-all of many education interests.
Now Congress is debating whether federal roles should extend into areas of ending social promotion, ensuring parental rights, developing new reading programs, reducing class size, and proposing national voluntary tests. Legislators are beginning to show less concern about local decision making (no matter how strong the rhetoric for) and a greater urgency about finding the right formulas for increasing student achievement, even though this involvement may mean centralization of decision making at the state or federal levels.
A major part of the discussion is how to best reduce the achievement gap between disadvantaged children and other students. The debates will focus on who and what kind of federal involvement is likely to promote higher academic performance. Potential middle-ground agreements might be established around such areas as teacher professional development and parental involvement. But other issues, such as private school vouchers, block grants, school construction, before- and after-school programs, and reauthorization of labs will prove contentious and partisan.
The Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA), which is best known as ESEA Title I, includes more than 47 categorical programs. It directs $8 billion out of the $12 billion federal program to poor and disadvantaged children. An additional $4 billion is targeted toward such programs as drug-free schools, technology initiatives, and Goals 2000.
Legislative debates will focus on selecting the areas of federal involvement among these many interests. Some policymakers will want things to stay the same. Others will want to convert large portions of IASA to block grants that would consolidate various program categories and allow local communities to determine where federal funds go, thereby losing categorical targets. Some policymakers will recommend maintaining the current legislation for another five years. Others will want to privatize and "voucherize" the program.
The Struggle to Redefine the Federal Role
The sheer number of small programs within IASA has dissipated its purpose and made it vulnerable to policymakers who claim that the federal government cannot be everything to everybody and that local school districts know best how to identify needs. The search for a balance between the federal commitment to disadvantaged children and the political instinct to distribute money to as many districts as possible will be a key discussion. Another issue involves the balance between ensuring local control and holding local school districts accountable for the money they spend—without appearing to increase federal intervention in local decision making.
The Republicans will most likely reintroduce two ideas they have entertained in the past. The first idea will be to consolidate funding and programs, thereby converting IASA into a grant-in-aid program without requiring local school districts to spend the money for designated purposes. The second idea will be to expand an education flexibility bill originally passed in 1994 that allowed a number of states and local school districts to waive rules and regulations, including many IASA programs, such as Title I for disadvantaged children.
The Democrats, in contrast, will want guarantees that money will not be diverted from helping needy children and holding school districts accountable for the federal money they spend. Republicans claim that this is a backdoor way of imposing more federal regulations, and Democrats claim that local school districts should spend the money on the federal purposes for which the IASA was designed.
But without an agreement on the federal purpose for involvement in education, determining how to measure the effectiveness of block grants remains difficult. For example, a major federal purpose is to reduce the achievement gap between disadvantaged African American students and advantaged white students. But in block grant programs that allow districts to spend funds with little accountability, the federal purpose will be in intent only, without enforcement. It just may be that both sides are right; that greater flexibility and more rigorous requirements for results are not antithetical.
Changing Federal Budget Rules
The funding outlook for education is also clouded by a change in the federal budget rules. This year, a fire wall collapses between the money available for domestic programs and the money available for military programs, essentially allowing one area to be raided to finance the other. Republican legislators are pressing hard for a substantial increase in Pentagon spending next year. And the White House has requested a $12 billion increase for defense. Because the budget already has severe caps, this increase may come from funds allocated for other purposes. We may also see another round of "budget games" to increase education spending and fund the President's class-size and school-construction initiatives. Or look for harsh debates between domestic programs and the military, or among domestic constituencies fighting for remaining monies.
Past May Be Prologue
One thing is clear: Because education is such a volatile national priority, neither the Congress nor the political parties want to be perceived as being soft on schooling. And neither the Congress nor the President wants a bill that will run counter to their political bases. The electorate seems to be saying that the federal government should be a major partner, along with the state and local communities, in solving education problems, but the political parties are worlds apart in recommending solutions. The extremes of each party could dictate debate, discouraging the development of more centrist educational approaches. Determining the federal role will be a journey filled with landmines, turns in the road, lateral and backward lurches in the name of forward movement—but explorations into yet uncharted domains.
