Amid the chaos of Washington lies opportunity

Education authorization measures languish in the rancorous political chasm between Capitol Hill and the White House. But maybe the standoff provides time for finding common ground and getting something done.

Looking in from outside Washington, the current state of education policy making at the federal level may appear, well, muddled. Despite passing an omnibus spending bill in January that restored much of the education spending cuts enacted by the sequester, Congress has made very little progress on the nine (yes, nine) major pieces of education legislation still unauthorized. That includes the No Child Left Behind Act (the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), which is now going on seven years overdue. Despite President Obama’s plea for action on some key education issues during his State of the Union address, most policy makers and education leaders in and outside the Beltway have given up hope that reauthorization will happen any time soon.

It is no secret that the inability of Congress to come together and create some form of viable education legislation has frustrated and annoyed Education Secretary Arne Duncan and many other Washington policy makers for quite some time. Duncan used his authority to actually leapfrog Congress and create his own version of a reauthorized NCLB by offering eligible states waivers, which allow them to bypass some of the law’s more unpopular requirements. Suffice to say, this move didn’t do much to improve the partisan rancor that put the brakes on reauthorization in the first place.

The waiver program allowed the U.S. Department of Education to assert its authority over state and local education policies that stem from programs authorized by NCLB (Title I being the biggest). But the waivers weren’t meant to be the final word on NCLB, and the activity they have created has done nothing to address the larger issue of what federal education policy should look like in a post-NCLB world. Senate Republicans responded by introducing legislation that consolidated almost all federal education programs to support an optional school choice program for states. The legislation, championed by powerful Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, is focused on giving parents far more input into how their children’s federal education dollars are spent, allowing them to use the funds to pay for private school, tutoring materials if they are home schooled, or to support a range of other educational options.

This proposed legislation — details of which have surfaced before in other bills — points to the fundamental disconnect between Congress and the administration about the scope and purpose of the federal role in education. In effect, the Senate Republicans’ bill seeks to leapfrog the federal government’s role in education funding much like Secretary Duncan’s waiver program sidestepped the Congressional stalemate over reauthorizing NCLB. Doing their best to avoid one another, the administration and Congress are acting like two awkward teenagers at prom — both in need of a dance partner but unsure how to make contact.

Essential programs

While much of the political dance around reauthorization has been focused on NCLB, remember that eight other major pieces of legislation are also awaiting action. They include essential education programs that support early childhood services, students with disabilities, education research, career and technical education, and higher education. In a different world, all of these programs might align to support a cohesive and holistic federal blueprint to support public education.

President Obama proposed this very idea when he issued his “Blueprint for Education Reform” in 2010 to guide what then seemed like early stages of the NCLB reauthorization process. Now, almost four years later and with so many issues and decisions in flux, it is difficult to imagine a situation that would allow for the thoughtful dialogue and fair-minded negotiating necessary to develop a comprehensive blueprint to shape federal education policy. The chaotic and hyperpoliticized nature of policy making in Washington today simply wouldn’t allow it.

While it is hard for even the most optimistic of us to think something valuable could actually come from all this uncertainty and disagreement, I find some hope in the Latin expression “ex chaos facultas,” or “from chaos comes opportunity.” While these may be uninspiring times for policy makers and education leaders who see the federal role in education as vital, this uncomfortable lull could be an opportunity. Perhaps this born-from-chaos pause in the action could facilitate some thoughtful reflection on the evolving federal role and even allow all parties to identify and agree on some common ground so, when reauthorization does finally happen, there are some clear starting points.

My predecessor and founder of the Center on Education Policy, Jack Jennings, recently talked about another time in history when the federal role in education was in the eye of the storm. As part of an education policy lecture series at the George Washington University’s Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Jennings, who served in a leadership capacity on the Hill from 1967 to 1994, talked about the inequities that existed during the 1950s and ’60s and the effect the federal role had on education, poverty, and child welfare. There was a lack of consensus about the federal role in education at that time too, Jennings pointed out, but lawmakers still managed to navigate a road forward.

Leveling the playing field

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was a key part of President Lyndon Johnson’s strategy to beat back poverty and improve outcomes for the most disadvantaged. Johnson’s opinion about the federal role in education was clear and unconditional: Unless and until the federal government helps level the field for disadvantaged students, there can be no real equality. From that starting point, ESEA was born and the programs within the law were focused almost exclusively on equity.

Time has shown us that while some of the social programs created as part of Johnson’s War on Poverty had a significant effect on the issues they targeted — including education — others did not. If we look back on the past 50 years of education policy, we would likely come to the same conclusion. If we could pause and evaluate where the federal government has had a true and lasting effect on public education and where it has not, perhaps we could chart a path out of the chaos and toward reauthorization.

We have time now to engage in some meaningful reflection and contemplation about the federal role in education.

Those who favor a limited or nonexistent federal role in education often point to the unwillingness of some to objectively determine which federal education programs have or have not been effective. Indeed, the allegiances, constituencies, and cottage industries that form around federal programs can become so ingrained that any attempt to evaluate how effectively those funds are used can spark a mini-revolt among supporters and like-minded advocates. Couple that with the agenda switching that often accompanies a new presidential administration and you have the recipe for some muddled policy making.

But even with those challenges, we have time now to engage in some meaningful reflection and contemplation about the federal role in education. In these perilous and cynical times, actually expecting action from those who develop policy and write legislation is risky, but these times won’t last forever. Something will eventually jump-start the process. Let’s not squander this opportunity to reflect on what research and experience tells us about what programs and policies have worked and which have not. With that as a starting point, we just might be able to move forward together toward a more effective and bipartisan agenda for federal education policy.

Citation: Ferguson, M. (2014). Washington view: Amid the chaos of Washington lies opportunity. Phi Delta Kappan, 95 (7), 68-69.