Viewpoints:
From the Statehouse to the Classroom:
Governing America's Schools
Is Politics in Education Here to Stay?
The Structure of Education Politics
As with most issues of governance in the United States, a high value traditionally has been placed on localism with regard to the governance of education. For much of the past 200 years, the political fluctuations and shifts in power and ideology were centered away from the federal level. The U.S. Department of Education and federal legislation established only the broadest of mandates for the provision of education. There has long been a reluctance to develop strict national curriculum standards or a national assessment. The result has been that the amount of direct impact the federal level could have on the day-to-day educating of students was limited. During the last century, court decisions and legislative mandates made specific provisions for certain segments of the population who were generally underserved (e.g., disabled children, English-language learners). Increased federal dollars followed to supplement the additional costs associated with meeting the needs of these segments of the population.
Without a federal education mandate, state agencies established the bulk of the standards and practices for their schools. Most state constitutions included language providing for free public education for students. In addition, states legislated broad curriculum standards and developed their own testing practices. Local districts generally complied with the educational mandates established at the federal and local levels. The daily lives of districts were most affected, not by these mandates, but by the interaction between the district office, the local superintendent, and the school board. Here is where most of the governance, policy shaping, and controlling of the local system occurred.
The continued growth of the education reform movement has reshaped the political structure of education. More interests and activists are at the political table from every level of governance: from the White House to the local parent organization. And each one is demanding more of education with louder voices and a stronger interest than ever before. More bodies are leveraging their political skill and power to exert pressure on the education system in the name of reform. For the local district, the increasing political pressure from a widening arena has meant a large shift for the role of local education leaders. Accountability for reforming education falls squarely on the district. Paul Houston, long-time superintendent and executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, believes the shifting of responsibility in conjunction with heightened accountability pressures creates an unrealistic challenge for today's superintendents (Houston, 2001). "While we tend to centralize responsibility in education reform, authority is widely dispersed," says Houston. He believes that superintendents are asked what they are going to do to reform education, yet the real authority and power are dispersed throughout an education system that includes boards, unions, governors, mayors, legislators, and judges. The solution, according to Houston, is either to recentralize the authority and capacity to engage in the work of reform that is being mandated or to redistribute the responsibility beyond the superintendent.
The politics of education is the result of the unique and complex interrelationship of political actors, all advocating their own visions of education. The public education system is in constant flux, due in part to the constant struggles for and resulting shifts in power. But a system that is in constant flux is really the nature of the political beast. There are constant subtle and not-so-subtle shifts in the political environment that throw today's political causes aside in search of new and better answers as our appetites, interests, and intellects change over time.
Joel Spring (1988) divides key political actors into three categories--major government actors (politicians, school boards, and the courts), special interest groups (unions, foundations, parents, and business), and the knowledge industry (funding agencies, researchers, knowledge brokers, and testing and publishing industries), each with its own set of interests. While this list is not comprehensive, it does provide a framework for understanding these actors as well as the conflicting relationship of dependency and competition that emerge.
This relationship is frequently criticized as a barrier to creating real change within the system. However, several key reforms within education, particularly at the federal level, have been the result of interest groups applying pressure and forming political alliances to create changes in areas such as special education, school integration, and social services for children.
The knowledge industry, in addition to developing what will be taught and how it will be taught in schools, provides government actors and interest groups with heightened legitimacy for their platforms through research and expertise. The results of solid research and development serve as valuable tools in shaping sound policy. Therefore, continued research and development in education directly affect the momentum of the other political arenas.
The importance of being in tune to the wants and agenda items of interest groups involved in education, as well as a basic familiarity with the research base around critical and emerging education issues, is more important now than ever for those seeking political positions. As part of a Campaign 2000 series, Education Week (Keller, 2000) pointed out the growing number of political candidates with education at the top of their priority lists. Michael Griffith of the Education Commission of the States speculates that a sound economy, reduced crime, and no major overseas conflicts allow the voters to focus on education more than ever (Keller, 2000). Those seeking to gain and hold onto political office are clearly in tune with that. "All of the polls say you have to say education is important," observed Todd Donovan, a professor of political science at Western Washington University in Bellingham (Keller, 2000).
