Federalism vs. local control |
On Board Online • August 10, 2015
What is the proper role of the federal government in making education policy?
That's what we asked NYSSBA members in a recent Pulse Poll. The results: 80 percent of respondents oppose federal intervention in how states evaluate schools and teachers, 65 percent oppose national incentives to adopt specific learning standards, and 63 percent oppose the federal requirement that states test all students in grades 3-8 in English and math each year.
Federalism - the sharing of power between federal and state governments - can minimize local control, which has historically been how Americans prefer their schools to be run.
Though public schools are overwhelmingly funded by state and local taxpayers, the federal government typically gets involved by providing financial incentives to states and school districts to adopt certain education policies. Such is the case with Title I and the Race to the Top grants. As we all know, education is a labor-intensive enterprise, so the additional funding can be a powerful incentive.
However, this may be the year when national lawmakers take a step back from this practice. As I write this, reauthorization of the major federal law governing education - the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) - is being discussed. Both the House and Senate passed their own versions of ESEA in July. The next sequential step is for Congress to convene a conference committee to reconcile the differences in the two proposals (see story, page 3).
Provisions in both the House and Senate versions seem to acknowledge the importance of local decision-making. The Senate proposal, for example, prohibits federal mandates on evaluation systems as well as mandates and incentives related to instructional content, academic standards, assessments and curriculum. Some board members may be disappointed that both the House and Senate proposals maintain the annual grades 3-8 testing requirement.
The ESEA reauthorization is an opportunity for course-correction after the disastrous No Child Left Behind Act.
Rural schools
I recently attended the state conference of the Rural Schools Association. It is frustrating to learn at such meetings how state policies seem to marginalize rural schools and ignore the challenges they face. , , administrators who work in other buildings within a district or administrators from a neighboring district. Clearly, no one at the state level was considering the implications of this mandate for rural school districts, which often have a single school building and can be quite distant from neighboring school districts. "One size does not fit all" is especially relevant when it comes to state policies and rural schools.
Member survey
You have probably heard that NYSSBA has hired Fact Finders, a prominent New York-based research firm, to conduct a comprehensive member survey. With Fact Finders as the survey facilitator, the collection and analysis of data will be anonymous and unbiased.
So check your e-mail this month for an invitation from Fact Finders to participate in our member survey. Whether you are a newly elected school board member, veteran, or somewhere in between, your participation will help us serve you better - and make school boards stronger.