Chapter 5 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ROLES by Richard Uliberri Weber State University Our forefathers were careful not to create a strong central government. Instead, they placed great faith for the protection of their sacred ideologies of liberty and equality in the proposition that that government is best which governs least. This method of creating governmental structures seemed to protect certain ideologies but was not designed for efficiency nor organizational unity. educational government faces greater stresses than ever before. of our educational problems simply relate to shortcomings in the structure and processes of educational government. Today, The present government of public education is a complex matrix of formal and informal parts extending from the home to the community, region, State and national governmental levels. Many problems in the public schools arise from the sheer complexity and lack of clear policy on division of responsibility among the various educational agents. Specifically, the chief problems are: inadequate structure of educational governance; lack of adequate knowledge, research and transferability; deficiency of services and controls; financial weakness and inequality; and inadequate and ineffective participation of a broad spectrum of the population. The It will be suggested that the governance system be altered. contention in this essay is that a better and more equitable balance of Federal, State, local, and community participation is needed in which State and Federal Governments play a larger role in educational affairs. A more active participation on their part will reduce the role of local governance. Only State and Federal Governments have the power and resources to provide the exogenous shocks necessary to initiate long-needed reformation of the educational system. The leadership role of the Federal Government is particularly crucial. The Congress exists as the most obvious vehicle for change through its power to enact legislation and appropriate funds. In any reform effort, Congress must carry the principal burden, not only to provide the financial resources, but to provide support for the national interests. The Federal Government has made important contributions to public educational opportunity; but its efforts are also hampered by the nemesis of federalism. In discussing this problem David K. Cohen commented on efforts to evaluate educational programs by stating that: The common element in all these difficulties is The experience thus far with Follow-Through suggests, Haskew asserts: "While autonomous localism in determination of educational policy and action has, in some instances, shown itself recently to be capable of impressive responses to such compulsions, it is still doubtful that all necessary execution of change can be comprehended by the localistic framework now existing." A national will that places a greater value on public educational attainment than on the perpetuation of traditional educational governance systems appears to be a sine qua non for school reform. In the Federal system of the United States education as an institution can be improved only slightly unless the decision to include more Federal and State participation is made. The demands which are now made upon schools far exceed the limitations of local control and effort. In a critical period that includes problems of school finance, unequal achievement and strained race relations, the schools as agents of the whole society must make their contribution to the amelioration of the problems and the deletion of discrimination and racial and ethnic antipathies across the national spectrum. In the mobile and interdependent society with its dissemination of educational information across the Nation, schools must change if they are to cease with provincial instruction. 1D. K. Cohen, "Politics and Research: Evaluation of Social Action Programs in Education." Review of Educational Research, V. 40, No. 2, Pp. 213-238. The present needs demand a consistent, cohesive, and comprehensive approach to the instruction of the Nation's youth. Only a coordination of Federal, State, and local policymaking can bring this about. The Nation needs a system of high-quality schools as much as it needs a system of high-quality roads. By comparison, the Nation did not have the highway system it needed until a partnership was formed for that purpose by the three Federal governmental systems. A new, viable principle of Federal-State-local relationships must be formulated to permit the development of better schools. Before presenting the case for a reformation of traditional public-school governance, it will be necessary to outline the present situation and then proceed with an examination of areas needing reformation. Governmental Structure and Educational Policy The The American constitution was silent concerning public education; so, by default the principle of "delegated" powers fixed the legal control of the schools within the purview of State government. States, however, have been slow to exercise initiative. Tradition has, consequently, developed primary control at the local level. Primary does not mean total control, however. More and more responsibilities have accrued to State and Federal agencies. Within the Federal Government there are three de jure agencies which affect educational control. The first is the executive branch. The executive executes policy initiatives to such an extent that often the work of Congress is that of discussing and ratifying executive policy rather than introducing new programs. An excellent example is the "Great Society" programs sponsored by President Johnson and essentially "ratified" by the Congress. On the executive side, one finds that the administrative structures have a very great part to play in the preparation of programs for executive sponsorship. The structures include such agencies as the U. S. Office of Education and the Office of Management and Budget. These agencies draft most of the proposals which enter an executive program. In the process of drafting, there is normally extensive consultation with other interested agencies and reconciliation of many issues on the executive level before the program is prepared for submission to Congress. A Presidential program is normally introduced into Congress through members of the President's party. The next branch of the Federal Government which relates to educational policy is the Congress. The process of creating legislation in the Congress must, go through the committee structures. One must recognize the powers of committee chairmen, the extensive use of subcommittees, and the extensive powers of subcommittee chairmen. Educational problems, like all other issues, most often become the special responsibility of a few Congressmen who control legislation in the committee stages. In these committee stages, party differences are likely to be somewhat less significant than when the legislation comes to a general vote on the Congressional floor. There is good communication in the committee between the legislative branches and administrative agencies. It must be kept in mind that bargaining is an essential reality of policymaking, both inside and outside of Congress. Very often the positions of Congressmen conform closely to the positions of organized groups. In turn, organized groups determine their positions in consultation with members of Congress who indicate to them the limits within which action is likely to take place. The judicial branch of the national government has come to play a major part in American education. The Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts have had an uncommonly great impact on education. Immediate examples of the impact are the decisions in 1954 of the Brown vs. the Board of Education case at Topeka and the current decisions in California and Texas relating to the tax base for education within the States. All major branches of the Federal Government affect public education. The various branches are not well coordinated with each other or with State and local levels of educational government. There are four factors which have led to this uncoordinated state of affairs at the Federal level. One is the piecemeal development of educational activities through support of various groups and special interests. The second is the use of educational activity as a method to further particular interests for which a department or agency has major concern. Another is the necessity of the Federal Government to cope with a number of responsibilities which could not be shifted readily to educational agents in the States. Finally, Congressional action of ten reflects the basic desire of some Congressmen and others to avoid Federal centralization of education. The States have decisionmaking machinery similar to that of the national government. The position of the governor is analogous to that of the national President. He is the principal determinor of programs for the legislature. Programs which are introduced independently of his support are unlikely to secure serious legislative consideration. Because of shorter legislative sessions in the States, a governor's veto is often more absolute than that of the President. Thus, in the shaping of State policy toward education, the governor's position is very important. State legislative action on educative matters is primarily conditioned by two factors: the relatively short legislative session, and the fact that most States often have programs for legislative action prepared by agencies such as boards and commissions. These are often closely associated with governors' recommendations. result of these two factors, legislators often react only to programs prepared in this manner. Frequently they have little time to pursue an independent study of the issues involved in the bills drafted. Those who support legislation are likely to support it because of the endorsement of the party leaders whom they respect and because they accept the special position of those members who are the spokesmen on the education issues. In the field of education, the sources of opposition are likely to be those which are concerned either with the level of expenditure or with the distribution of the tax burden. State courts, like Federal courts, are sometimes called to rule upon particular educational issues. These decisions inevitably place the courts in educational policy-control roles. Nearly all States have State boards for the purpose of supervision of elementary and secondary education. These boards perform policymaking roles by carrying out the general directives of State legislatures. The board oversees State education departments which have various administrative responsibilities. State departments, especially through their executive officers, inevitably become involved in policymaking since they often possess expertise needed by State board members and legislators. Among the kinds of decisions which have come to be made at the state level are the following: 1. Most States establish the program scope such as kindergarten, vocational education or junior college. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The legislature usually delegates through the State board Some State boards adopt a standard course of study or In some cases, States adopt particular textbooks that are State regulations and statutes are detailed with respect States figure heavily in the financing program of the schools. The ever-increasing involvement of the Federal Government |