The American Education Policy Landscape

Jennifer A. Rippner

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317542339
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Educational Policy

In today's complex educational environment, it's critical for educators to understand the policy landscape. Research-based and grounded in a non-ideological perspective, The American Education Policy Landscape is an essential guide for educators, graduate students, and policymakers alike. This accessible resource unpacks complex concepts and provides a comprehensive overview of early childhood, K-12, and higher education policy issues, including governance structures at the local, state, and national levels; the process of policymaking; issues of educational finance; and the impact of stakeholders. The American Education Policy Landscape provides aspiring and practicing educators, analysts, researchers, and policymakers with the foundational knowledge and context for understanding education policy, enabling them to make effective decisions, provide informed advice, and craft critical research questions on education.

Part I OVERVIEW OF THE AMERICAN EDUCATION SYSTEM

DOI: 10.4324/9781315728247-2

Chapter 2 The Structure of the American Education System

DOI: 10.4324/9781315728247-3

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief synopsis of the American education governance structure and examine how it was shaped to its current form. If we accept McGuinn and Manna’s (2013) definition of policy as “the array of initiatives, programs, laws, regulations, and rules that the governance system chooses to produce” (p. 9), we see how important education governance systems are to educational policymaking and how important it is that students of education policy understand the complicated structure.

The Evolution of Separate Systems

The historical origins of both secondary and postsecondary education have their roots in the early American settlers’ familiarity with England’s system of education (Bailyn, 1960). In England, the large, extended families took responsibility for a child’s education. There was not a clear boundary where the family ended and society began, so distinctly separate primary educational institutions were not common. When children reached a certain age, they began an apprenticeship to learn a trade. Children of the elite matriculated to universities to study rhetoric, classical languages, and other subjects that gave a foundation of cultural knowledge. Knowledge for its own sake was prized, but these institutions also produced leaders who could serve the community such as clergy, teachers, and politicians (Bailyn, 1960).

Although this is what early settlers were familiar with, this system was not easily transmitted to the new colonies because practical considerations outweighed cultural ones (Bailyn, 1960). American settlers were busy starting towns and businesses and providing for their families. Education had to further those aims. The family unit was not as vast or strong as in England. The hardships of colonial life resulted in smaller families that were more distinct from the communities in which they lived, often with the children being more adaptable to and comfortable with the new world society than their parents, which resulted in some loss of parental authority. Because of this, colonies began to devise laws that imposed child obedience requirements, forcing parents to attend to the behavior and education of their children (Bailyn, 1960). This was the first state (colony) foray into education.

Around this time, colonists who were Oxford and Cambridge graduates wanted to begin similar institutions in the colonies. In 1636, the Massachusetts Bay Colony founded Harvard College with an appropriation of 400 pounds (Whitehead, 1973). While the emphasis was on the perpetuation of cultural knowledge, such an institution also served a practical aim to educate clergy and public leaders. By the American Revolution, the colonies had established nine colleges (Rudolph, 1962).

While the English universities were certainly influential in the colonists’ development of American universities, they looked to other countries as well. Creation of external boards of control for the new colleges came from Scottish universities and was adopted to place some accountability on the new institutions. Further, the presidents of the new world universities were granted executive authority, unlike the chancellors of English colleges (Thelin, 2004). American colonists seized the opportunity to create new organizational forms based on the perceived best features of other systems. “One could argue that the creation and refinement of this structure—the external board combined with a strong college president—is a legacy of the colonial colleges that has defined and shaped higher education in the United States to this day” (Thelin, 2004, p. 12).

Schools proliferated over the next century, mainly due to increasing immigration from Europe and growth of religious denominations. Each religion or nationality wanted to be responsible for inculcating their particular values to their children, so they developed their own grammar schools (Bailyn, 1960; Butts, 1978). Attendance at school was voluntary, and any attempt to exert state influence or control over education was usually met with fierce resistance from church and local leaders (Bailyn, 1960). This, coupled with westward expansion and greater physical separation between homesteads, led to a decentralized structure of education governance that persists today (Butts, 1978).

Schools were first supported by individual contributions, which started a tradition of external (non-teacher/student) control of education. “Dependent for support upon annual or even less regular gifts, education at all levels during the early formative years came within the direct control, not of those responsible for instruction, but of those who had created and maintained the institutions. When in the eighteenth century a measure of economic maturity made it possible to revert to other, older forms, the tradition of external control was well established” (Bailyn, 1960, p. 44). External control of schools continued even after the American Revolution, when some of the founding fathers desired a national system of education to inculcate republican values (Tyack, James, & Benavot, 1987). “Education—civic as well as intellectual—seemed an ideal instrument to turn people with diverse loyalties into citizens of a new entity—the republican state—while at the same time training them to be alert to their rights, liberties, and responsibilities” (Tyack et al., 1987, p. 24). Yet, a national system of education never took hold, as a coordinated federal effort could not be assembled. There was no mention of education in the Articles of Confederation of 1781 or the U.S. Constitution of 1789. However, the congressional Land Ordinance of 1785 required that new townships include a portion of land for public schools (Bailyn, 1960). This was more to incentivize westward expansion than to support public schooling (Tyack et al., 1987). Lack of federal involvement did not mean that education was absent from governmental agendas; many state constitutions adopted since the revolution had already addressed education (Butts, 1978). For instance, as early as 1784, the state of New York developed a board of regents to oversee and provide financial support for education (Kaestle, 1983). By the late 1800s, all states had some constitutional or statutory provision for education (Tyack et al., 1987).

The 19th century would bring dramatic fluctuations in state support and governance of higher education, which would further its distinction from primary/secondary education. First, higher education shifted from complete state support to more private support. All colonial colleges were legally established by a civil authority (an American colony or British monarchy) and were initially supported and governed by such civil authority. However, by the late 1800s, a distinction between public and private colleges became apparent. First, states began to limit their financial support to the nation’s colleges. This was likely due to the rise of state support for common schools (primary grades) and other social welfare activities in the mid-1800s that placed additional demands on state budgets (Whitehead, 1973). This additional state support for common schools stemmed, in part, from court cases resulting in state compulsory attendance laws, requiring students to attend school until a certain age or grade. By 1900, most states had such a law (Hutt, 2012).

Second, Whitehead argues that not only did the rise of common schools require additional funds, but unlike higher education, common schools also had state-supported personnel (superintendents) to lobby legislators and engender support. This was at a time when colleges lacked vast popular support. “The doubts of the people rested on three major contentions—that the colleges were aristocratic, that they were sectarian, and that they were only for the ‘professional classes’” (Whitehead, 1973, p. 123). This view did not engender much widespread public demand for greater governmental support of colleges. Further, new territories were required to include provision of education in their constitutions in order to be admitted to statehood (Tyack et al., 1987). The language of most constitutions was stronger for primary and secondary education than higher education (if higher education was mentioned at all). K–12 education was often deemed a right for citizens, but states only had to make provisions for higher education. All of these factors helped to shift a greater proportion of state resources to K–12 education over higher education.

In the mid-1800s, French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville (1835), interested in the American democracy “experiment,” came to study its government. He subsequently published his observations. He found that the average educational level of American citizens was greater than in Europe, but yet there were not many “learned” citizens. On the other hand, there were not many “ignorant” people. Tocqueville notes, “in New England, every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is moreover taught the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution.” (p. 366). He also found that education was not as robust in the western and southern regions of the U.S. during that time. Perhaps what Tocqueville noticed was the effect of valuing education for practical purposes. All people had some education, yet very few were well educated. Knowledge for knowledge’s sake was not the core value. Tocqueville compared the aims of education between the U.S. and Europe and found that “in the United States politics are the end and aim of education; in Europe its principal object is to fit men for private life” (p. 370).

Nevertheless, higher education continued to grow during this time period. In 1862, the federal Morrill Act established land-grant colleges in each state for practical mechanical and agricultural education. Institutions specifically for women and Blacks also dotted the landscape. Normal schools for educating teachers numbered in the hundreds, and research became important as the first Ph.D. was offered at Johns Hopkins University in 1876 (Rudolph, 1962). All of these developments increased both the number and the size of higher education institutions.

By 1900, common schools had greatly expanded with the aid of state support and mandatory attendance laws. State-appointed officials governed elementary and secondary education. Higher education had also expanded with a mixture of state and private support, but control rested at the institutional rather than state level. By the turn of the 20th century, it was clear that K–12 and higher education had evolved into separate systems.

Linking the Sectors

With greater numbers of children attending primary and secondary education and more students attending college, the need for greater linkages between the sectors became important.

19th Century History

Following the lead of the University of Michigan in 1871, faculty from various institutions of higher education began visiting feeder high schools to observe the academic program and decide whether graduates of the schools were prepared for college (VanOverbeke, 2008). Graduates of accredited high schools had guaranteed admission to the specific accrediting institution without the need for an entrance exam. This process also benefited the institutions because feeder high schools adopted the curriculum recommended by the university and could ensure graduates would be ready for college courses (VanOverbeke, 2008). There was a larger aim as well. James Angell, the president of the University of Michigan at the time accreditation began, hoped that alignment of expectations throughout the educational levels would lead all teachers and professors to see themselves as “‘parts of one united system’ working to provide a strong education for all students in the state” (VanOverbeke, 2008, p. 39). Over time, accreditation of feeder high schools by individual colleges and their professors became unwieldy given the growth in the number of high schools students matriculated from, and organizations were established to take over the functions on behalf of regions of institutions.

Early 20th Century History

In the early 1900s, the College Entrance Examination Board (now College Board) developed a uniform assessment for college entry (Karabel, 2005). This helped to establish uniform requirements for college entry and provide common guidance for high school curriculums across the nation. As individual colleges began replacing their assessments with this common examination, a more diverse student body from around the nation had the opportunity to take an entrance exam and be admitted to an institution (Karabel, 2005). This, along with accreditation, began sending signals to K–12, as a sector, on what was required for college entry. Yet, it was generally up to individual schools and districts whether to heed the signals, which resulted in uneven student preparation and access to higher education.

In the early 20th century, the governance divide between K–12 and postsecondary education was marked. Basic education was compulsory and supported by both local and state funding. Local school boards governed the schools under general guidance and requirements from the state. Institutions of higher education received state and federal, rather than local, funding and remained largely independent of state control (Tyack et al., 1987). In fact, in 1940, 70% of postsecondary institutions had their own governing bodies (Kirst, 2005). This changed drastically just a few years later.

The federal Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1946 (GI Bill) effectively opened higher education to the masses, as returning World War II soldiers entered colleges by the tens of thousands (Kirst, 2005; Thelin, 2004). Coordination was required to accommodate this growth. The decision of how to coordinate higher education at the state level resulted in another major governance disjuncture with secondary education. Rather than place responsibility for higher education coordination under existing state departmen...