From Whence It Came: The Birth of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act I. Background The Common School Lawyer, state senator and educator Horace Mann promoted the concept of all children learning together in “common” schools operated with public support. In 1837, as state senate president, Mann worked to establish the Massachusetts state board of education, of which he became the first secretary. “Education,” Mann wrote in his 1848 board report, “beyond all other devices of human origin is a great equalizer of the conditions of men,—the balance wheel of the social machinery.” The Federal Role In 1867 the Department of Education Act [yes, that was its title] specified the sole purpose of federal education activity was to conduct research through gathering statistics and reporting to the public the “condition of education,” as well as “observations about school organization and teaching methods,” which the “Bureau of Education” [no longer a department] would “compile and disseminate.”1 With the advent of Brown v. Board of Education a sea-change in federal/state relations over k-12 education occurred. Federal Assistance From the federal government’s inception schooling was viewed as a matter of local control. “Persons elected to the executive and legislative offices have not succeeded in reversing the passive federal role in education established in the Constitution,” according to the Education Commission of the States. While being true to the founders’ belief in local control, Congress did initiate federal backing for public education through adoption of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which required land section set-asides for the purpose of financing public schools in each Northwest Territory federal land grant. States admitted to the Union in the post-Civil War era were “required…to provide free, nonsectarian public schools”2 as a condition of their admission. The Morrill Act (1862) created “land-grant colleges” through grants of federal land for “agriculture and engineering” The Birth of ESEA American Association of School Administrators Page 2 of 15 education.3. And in 1917 the Smith-Hughes Act offered matching federal funds to “encourage communities to establish vocational and agricultural courses in secondary schools.”4 In recognition of the tremendous influx of employees to staff the new, tax-exempt defense facilities and supply depots created prior to the war, Congress passed the 1940 Lanham Act, which provided funds for the construction and operation of elementary and secondary schools in these “impacted” areas of the nation. The program, initially viewed as temporary in nature, became an established program in 1950. Federal education initiatives continued in the post-WWII era via the G.I. Bill’s guarantee of a college education to all returning veterans, and the 1958 Sputnik-generated National Defense Education Act, which pumped millions of dollars for science, math and language-learning curricula into states and local districts. All the while, however, local control of K-12 education remained paramount. Federal involvement, in the form of “general aid,” faced fierce opposition for reasons of race, religion, and—during the McCarthy era—what might be seen as the “communist” implications of central control of the nation’s public schools. Consequently, any talk of open-ended general aid gave way to “categorical” assistance, i.e., funds to be distributed for a specific purpose, which included relieving the impact of federal facilities, and science education activities under NDEA. President John Kennedy attempted (in 1961, ’62 and ’63) to expand the Impact Aid law by adding $2.3 billion for school construction and teacher salaries, but was blocked by Congress when he stated his opposition to using any funds for assistance to private schools. II. The Johnson Proposal As mentioned earlier, Brown v. Board of Education injected the federal government into how local schools operate, requiring genuinely equal educational opportunities for all children. Following his landslide victory and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed any federal assistance to segregated schools, President Lyndon Johnson took the next major step. He proposed aggressive action—as a part of his “War on Poverty”—to make massive amounts of new federal funds available to districts with high concentrations of poor children. His plan, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, introduced early in his second term, moved rapidly— and virtually unchanged—through Congress and was signed into law April 11, 1965. The heart of the bill (HR 2362) was contained in its first title, Title I, which was to receive $1 billion—of the $1.3 billion proposed by the President—for the purpose of “strengthening educational opportunities in those schools where there are concentrations of children coming from low-income families.” Funds were to be distributed by a formula based on the numbers of children in each county from families with annual incomes of $2,000 or less. Specifically, “an entitlement for the school districts within a county would be determined by multiplying the number of such children plus additional children whose families received more than $2,000 under AFDC by 50 percent of the average per pupil current expenditures in the State.” The Birth of ESEA American Association of School Administrators Page 3 of 15 Title II of the bill offered grants to states for “textbooks, library resources, and other instructional materials to be made available to students and teachers on a loan basis.” Title III proposed $100 million in grants to local districts “for the construction and operation of supplemental educational centers through which educational services and enriched educational opportunities would be provided to elementary and secondary school students.” Title IV suggested up to $45 million “for the purpose of broadening educational research and the establishment of additional regional laboratory facilities.” Title V “provides $25 million for grants to strengthen State departments of education.” III. The Bush Proposal During his 2000 campaign for president, George W. Bush said he would “insist upon local control of schools and high standards for results [and] make sure every child learns to read and no one is left behind.” He said he was “not running for federal superintendent of schools…[and said he] trust[s] the people of New Hampshire to make the right decisions for the children of New Hampshire,” adding, “I intend to pass power back form Washington to local jurisdictions, to enhance and encourage local control of schools.” Making high standards, local accountability and parental choice his education themes, Bush said, “If your school district or your schools receive a dime of federal money, I’m going to expect that school and district to measure and when we fine success there will be a bonus pool, but when we find failure after a three-year period of time, the money will no longer go to the school. It’ll go to the parent so the parent can make a different choice for his or her children.” The No Child Left Behind Act, HR 1, became the most far-reaching k-12 legislation since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which HR 1 altered substantially. The heart of “No Child” also centered on Title I, which was to be amended to: • Require yearly testing and assessments of student performance, • Require state standards for and assessments of Adequate Yearly Progress, • Require school districts to identify schools shown as needing improvement, • Require districts to report to parents and the public on school performance and teacher quality, • Establish eligibility requirements for schoolwide Title I programs, • Require schools to increase the qualifications necessary for hired teachers and paraprofessionals, • Require schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress to offer parents of all children in that school the option to transfer to another public school, and offer low income children who remain in the lack-of-progress schools access to supplementary educational services provided by public and private, including religious, schools and providers. Other, less comprehensive sections of HR 1 include: Title II state grants to help prepare, train and recruit “high quality” teachers and principals, The Birth of ESEA American Association of School Administrators Page 4 of 15 Title III state grants for language instruction to limited English proficient students, Title IV state grants for drug and violence prevention, Title V program to promote parental choice, and provide grants for: public charter schools; magnet schools; school counseling, study of “unhealthy school buildings, the effects of children’s exposure to violent entertainment and sexual abuse in schools;” character education, inexpensive book distribution, smaller learning communities, gifted and talented education, “Star Schools,” digital educational programs, foreign language study, physical education, community technology centers, Alaska and Native Hawaiian programs, economics education, mental health programs, arts in education, family information centers, equitable services for private school students, and Impact Aid. Title VI to assist states with the costs of developing and administering the newly-required tests and standards, regulatory flexibility. Title VII grants for Indian, Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native Education. Title VIII grants for Impact Aid. Title IX general provisions in such areas as exemption of home-schooled children from testing, student records privacy,