Articles – Federal Education Policy History

Frederick M. Hess and Patrick J. McGuinn, “Seeking the Mantle of ‘Opportunity’: Presidential Politics and the Educational Metaphor, 1964-2000,” Educational Policy, vol. 16, no. 1, January and March 2002, pp. 72-95.

Abstract: Traditionally, scholars have accorded the issue of education only a minor role in understanding presidential elections. The authors suggest that this is a mistake and offer a reassessment of education’s symbolic and substantive role in contemporary presidential politics. In particular, education’s embodiment of opportunity and personal responsibility made it a crucial metaphor in post-Great Society politics. The new conservatism that emerged in 1964 would enjoy success with its sunny promise of individual opportunity but would eventually be torn between its implicit guarantee of universal opportunity and opposition to activist government. In the early 1990s, centrist Democrats used education to exploit this tension and slip the party’s “tax and spend” reputation. Republican nominees, in turn, struggled to demonstrate their commitment to extending opportunity to all Americans. In 2000, Republican candidate George W Bush used an accountability-driven education program to neutralize the Democratic advantage but, in so doing, created a potential party rift with implications for future presidential politics and national education policy.

Kenneth Wong and Gail Sunderman, “Education Accountability as a Presidential Priority: No Child Left behind and the Bush Presidency,” Publius, vol. 37, no. 3, summer 2007, pp. 333-350.

Abstract: Not available.

Lora Cohen-Vogel, “Federal Role in Teacher Quality: ‘Redefinition’ or Policy Alignment?” Educational Policy, vol 19, no. 1, January and March 2005, pp.18-43.

Abstract: Although state attention to teacher preparation and professional development began more than 150 years ago with the provision of teacher education in Massachusetts, the federal government did not get involved in teacher preparation and development until the late 1950s. Even then, Washington lawmakers generally restricted their activities to financial assistance for in-service training and college aid for teachers. Over time, the federal approach to teacher education has expanded in shape and scope, even as some continued to characterize it as peripheral to core issues of instruction. Today, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the federal government claims to have redefined its role. By tracing the evolution of federal involvement in teacher education over time, this study finds that the act’s provisions may reflect an ongoing attempt beginning in the 1990s to align teacher preparation and professional development activities with K-12 educational reform efforts.

Hanne B. Mawhinney and Catherine A. Lugg, “Introduction: Interest Groups in United States Education,” Educational Policy, vol. 15, no. 1, January 2001, pp. 3-1.

Abstract: This article provides an overview to this special issue on interest groups and the politics of education. It first maps out the conceptual terrain by discussing educational interest groups and defining interest groups in American politics. This article then concludes with a brief discussion of the issues to be explored in greater depth in the individual pieces.

Robert W. Howard et al., “Politics of Character Education,” Educational Policy, vol. 18, no 1, January and March 2004, pp. 188-212.

Abstract: Character education’s history in the United States goes back to the beginning of public schools. The emphasis and profile has waxed and waned, frequently with political trends. The current standards-based environment poses particular threats and challenges to character education. In spite of these pressures, character education continues and—by most measures—is growing. This article (a) defines character and examines the history of character education in U.S. public schools; (b) introduces and contrasts the major approaches: traditional character education, caring, and developmental; and (c) outlines and examines current issues including the relationship of character to citizenship education, the family and school roles in character development, the relationship of church and state, federal and state polices and funding of character education programs, and issues of evaluation and research. Although advocating for character education, the approach here to the issues is descriptive and as impartial as possible.

P. David Pearson, “The Reading Wars,” Educational Policy, vol. 18, no 1, January and March 2004, pp. 216-252.

Abstract: This article’s fundamental argument is that the reading instruction and reading research have been shaped by political forces desiring to privilege particular approaches to instruction or particular combinations of methodological and epistemological perspectives on research. The swings in both dominant pedagogies and dominant research paradigms are analyzed in terms of these determining forces. The article concludes by championing balance and compatibility across both instructional approaches and research methods in the hope of arresting the pendulum swings that have characterized the field for too many decades.

Alan H. Schoenfeld, “The Math Wars,” Educational Policy, vol. 18, no 1, January and March 2004, pp. 253-286.

Abstract: During the 1990s, the teaching of mathematics became the subject of heated controversies known as the math wars. The immediate origins of the conflicts can be traced to the “reform” stimulated by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Traditionalists fear that reform-oriented, “standards-based” curricula are superficial and undermine classical mathematical values; reformers claim that such curricula reflect a deeper, richer view of mathematics than the traditional curriculum. An historical perspective reveals that the underlying issues being contested—Is mathematics for the elite or for the masses? Are there tensions between “excellence” and “equity”? Should mathematics be seen as a democratizing force or as a vehicle for maintaining the status quo?—are more than a century old. This article describes the context and history, provides details on the current state, and offers suggestions regarding ways to findaproductive middle ground.

“Do I have to go to school?”

So many children have put this question to their parents or guardians. To we 21st century Americans, the question seems amusing. “Of course you must go.”

But compulsory schooling in the United States is a somewhat recent practice. From the days of the European settlement of North America through the early 20th century, all kids were not expected to attend school. Some localities and states enacted compulsor schooling laws, and hired truancy officers to nab urchins from the streets and haul them to class.

The question of whether government could rightly do that was fiercely debated. Ultimately, is the child the property of the parent? And how can a people be free if their children are forced into institutions to be “educated” in their duties as citizens? And doesn;t it trample upon religious freedom to require parents to submit thier children to schooling that conflcts with tenets of their faiths?

Ultimately, these local issues became a federal one via the federal courts.

For an introduction to this subject, see Stephen Provasnik‘s article, “Judicial Activism and the Origins of Parental Choice: The Court’s Role in the Institutionalization of Compulsory Education in the United States, 1891-1925,” History of Education Quarterly, fall 2006, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ768604.