Drayton1

An Analysis of the Relationship between Education Policy and Federalism

Justin Drayton

Writing Sample

August 10th, 2023

 Drayton2

Abstract

As the topic of the federal government’s infringement on state’s rights becomes

increasingly prevalent, it is evident that the higher branches are united to expand the power of

the top-layer of government. The debate around education is a prime example of how the federal

government battles American federalism over their initiative to standardize policies relating to

K-12 schools. Why does the nationalization of education policy collide incorrectly with our

system of American federalism? This paper argues that any attempt towards standardization of

education policy is infeasible due to our system of Federalism and the lack of variation within

the prior attempts to implement federal education legislation. Further, it explains the times the

United States government has tried to utilize coercive federalism to follow through with their

goals in overstepping the reserved powers of the states. Then, finally conducts a comparison of

education in countries that do not utilize a federalist system. This research is important as it

demonstrates the flaws of American federalism when it comes to topics that directly impact the

citizens it is meant to protect.

Key Words:
american federalism, education policy, no child left behind act, elementary and secondary
education act, state rights, unitary system

Intro

The position of every single citizen in the United States society lays heavily on their

developmental period. The USA mandates that all of its citizens must receive some sort of

education during their upbringing, emphasizing the value that a well educated country is a

productive country. Despite this value, there has been almost no attention given to education

within the nation’s structure or history. For example, each of the 50 states has a different version

of the nation’s history taught to its students. Could the explanation for the contentious issues in
 Drayton3

the country’s politics be explained by the fact that there is no allowance for standardization of

education policy?

While prior attempts of nationalizing education have proven disastrous, the problem

partially revolves around the execution itself and not the intention. The No Child Left Behind

Act of 2001 is often cited as an example of the federal government failing to understand its

citizens in the way that states do. However, the way it was executed in the first place was only

the way it was because of the limits placed on the national government through the USA’s

federalist governmental structure. If the power of monitoring education was placed in the hands

of the federal government, it would lead to a more unified, and thus less politically polarized

country.

First, this paper will analyze past legislative evidence dating all the way back to the

country’s founding regarding the decision to leave education in the reserved powers of the states.

Second, it will examine different cases where the state led education system has failed or

supported citizens. Third, it will compare and contrast our country against other countries that

handle education in a different way. Finally, it will examine instances where the federal

government intervened in education policy and explain the ramifications of those decisions.

Literature Review

How long has the debate surrounding The United States’s education policy been going on

for? Considering that the introduction of the primary executive voting system (the electoral

college) was an acknowledgement that the United State’s citizens could not be trusted to vote for

the President in a reasonable manner it would be assumed that the task of educating their citizens

more efficiently would be at the forefront of their minds. Yet, there is not a single mention of it

within the nation’s constitution. This means that according to the 10th Amendment the power to
 Drayton4

determine education falls within state authority. Numerous scholars and political scientists have

tried to quantify the impact of having 50 different education institutions on the citizens of the

United States, and there has been debate throughout the entire history of the country whether or

not this is a functioning system. This literature review will examine different arguments

surrounding the topic of a nationalized education system. From the constitutional convention in

1787 to the disastrous implementation of the No Child Left Behind policy in 2001 it will

examine prior articles and journals that surround the topic of the nationalization of the education

system and how it relates to the USA's political system of federalism.

The lack of context behind the founding father’s decision to leave the topic of education

out of the constitution is something that has barely been previously explored. J.E. Haubenreich’s

addition to the Peabody Journal of Education titled “Education and the Constitution” is one of

the only of its kind to examine the history behind this precedent. Haubenreich’s article explores

legislation from the 18th century that revolved around education and proves that indeed, the

topic of a public education system was contentious even back then. During and after the

Revolutionary War numerous states developed state constitutions, and at least six of those had

provisions surrounding education. Founding Fathers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas

Jefferson might not have explored the possibility of it on a federal level but had certainly pushed

education initiatives at the local and state levels. In particular, Jefferson’s “Bill for the More

General Diffusion of Knowledge” which pushed for stronger rights of education within the

Virginia state constitution shines as an example that at least some of the members present at the

Constitutional Convention were advocates of education policy (Haubenreich 2012, 442-443).

Haubenreich tries to answer the question of what exactly went down at the Constitutional

Convention and whether or not there was any debate around public education, citing a list of
 Drayton5

proposed powers that James Madison had written for the first convention in 1787. These powers

were “To establish a University” and “To encourage by premiums & provisions, the

advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries,” (Haubenreich 2012, 446) However, one of

the fathers named Gouverneur Morris argued that such a power was not necessary as “the

exclusive power at the Seat of Government, will reach the object.” Morris had argued that

Congress already had the power through the other enumerated powers (Haubenreich 2012,

446-447). True or not, the motion lost and thus so did the initiative of publicizing education. This

precedent was further set in stone with the supreme court ruling in San Antonio Independent

School District v. Rodriguez (1973) that there was no mention of education in the constitution,

thus leaving it within the reserved powers (San Antonio Independent School District v.

Rodriguez, 1973).

The cause of education being placed in the power of the states has been identified and the

effects are explored in “How Variations in State Policies and Practices Impact Student

Outcomes: What Principals and Professors Need to Know,” an article that examines the

differences between the 50 states and how they impact student achievement. The authors identify

two major factors that determine how likely a student is to succeed during their primary and

secondary schooling: compulsory attendance and education funding (Owings, Myran, Doyle

2017, 299). One of the factors that impacts student achievement is how each state handles

compulsory attendance, or rather how much they force their students to attend school. Some

states are harder on “chronic absenteeism” than others, with most choosing to under-report the

lack of student participation. The authors deemed that students in kindergarten who missed more

than 10% of the school year would have lower scores in 1st grade, and were associated with the

lowest scores in 5th grade (Owings, Myran, Doyle 2017, 301).

 Drayton6

Education funding is the other big variable that relates to student achievement. A

suggestive benefit-cost analysis conducted by C. Kirabo Jackson, Rucker Johnson, and Claudia

Persico found that increasing spending by 10% for K-12 students increased wages by 7.25%

every year (Jackson, Johnson, Persico 2016, 40). They also found that these effects are

exacerbated with families considered “low-income”, with that benefit-cost study proving that

increasing education spending by 10% also reduces adult poverty by 3.67% (Jackson, Johnson,

Persico 2016, 41). These facts highlight an unfortunate effect of education being a reserved

power. The concept of allowing states to underfund their students, and in-turn cause more adult

poverty is an unfortunate reality that comes with American federalism.

Contemporary analysis proves that the federal government has tried recently numerous

times to stick their hand into the honey pot of education. Through Article 1, Section 8 of the

constitution “The Congress shall have Power… to pay the Debts and provide for the common

Defense and general Welfare of the United States” the federal government will often use

categorical grants and other pieces of legislation to incentivize state and local governments to

further prioritize education. A key component of the conversation surrounding national education

is the No Child Left Behind Act. In 2002, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) passed through

Congress with President George Bush signing it into law. The law had good intentions, there

would be federal regulations laid in place and schools that were falling below the federal

regulations would receive more funding and attention from the national government. If a school

fell below these requirements then the students of that school had to be given the option to either

transfer as well as the school having stricter expectations regarding tutoring, summer school,

remedial school, etc.

 Drayton7

Numerous scholars such as David Hursh and Daniel Rubin have criticized the No Child

Left Behind act. Hursh specifically addresses the inequalities behind the standardized testing

system and how they hurt schools in urban areas. Hursh claims that these lower-income schools

(the ones that overwhelmingly scored below the national requirements) only further had to deal

with fiscal problems when came the requirements that would come for schools who scored low

on the tests. While the bill was drafted with the intention of helping close the gap between

minority students and white students there were aspects lost during the transition from the

national to the local level. Hursh proves that from 1998-2001, the drop-out rate for students of

color increased by 19% (Hursh 2007, 300). He also shows a statistic that shows that the number

of students with disabilities who dropped out of high school increased from 7,200 a year (1996)

to 9,200 a year (2001) (Hursh 2007, 300). The explanation for this lies in the fact that the

teachers and principals who were given new standards with their students started opting to find

ways to remove the “bad-apple” students through disciplinary actions rather than try to improve

their academic standing.

Though the first instinct is likely to demonize the teachers who would rather expel than

educate, Daniel Rubin explains the perspective of the educators in his article titled “The

Disheartened Teacher: Living in the Age of Standardisation, High-stakes Assessments, and No

Child Left Behind (NCLB).” Rubin goes a bit more into depth about the measurement tool the

federal government uses, the Annual Year Progress report (AYP). Rubin explains that the AYP

tapers how teachers operate in their class, as instead of working towards the individualized needs

of the students, they have to focus on the needs of the AYP (Rubin 2011, 408-409). He cites a

variety of sources on how the NCLB act specifically hurts flexibility, including personalized

quotes from a questionnaire asking a diverse array of teachers.

 Drayton8

An interview conducted by Susan McCarthy of Illinois State University found that 16

out of 18 teachers questioned agreed that they felt they needed to narrow their curriculum to

topics like mathematics and sciences due to their focus on standardized tests (McCarthy 2008,

479). Students are learning less about humanities and how to participate intellectually within a

society due to the enormous focus on other subjects, and teachers are losing their flexibility in

the classroom. The federal government made the assumption that mathematics and science is the

best measure for a student's academic success, but did not consider the individual uniqueness of

each student's ability. Instead of being allowed to explore passions for history or literature, they

are judged solely on their ability to quantify numbers and remember formulas.

It is clear that education within American federalism is a tricky topic, and one that does

not have a whole lot of basis in fact but in historical tradition. The No Child Left Behind Act is a

direct example of how the United States federal government struggles with following through

any sort of educational plan they develop as they try to overcome state authority. Previous

literature explores deeply the “how” of the No Child Left Behind Act but there is not much

information on the “why.” The following case study will take a look at the history of the national

government trying to impose federal authority through education legislation and the successes

and failures that accompanied it. It will try to make clear that the issue at hand is American

federalism, and not the government’s intentions to try to better standardize the education its

citizens receive.

Case Study

The topic of the United States federal system and the impact it has on government

operations has been hotly debated since the Articles of Confederation were written. The United

States system is incredibly unique in the fact that it relies heavily on all levels of government to
 Drayton9

cooperate if they wish to implement any actual changes in the lives of its citizens. There are

numerous advantages and disadvantages to this system. The primary advantage is the separation

of powers, which is the idea that a concentration of power must be limited to prevent tyranny.

The founding fathers ensured that they created a system of checks and balances to guarantee that

the authoritative system the country declared independence from would never again be seen. An

example of this balance of power would be the double security provided by federalism, like how

the two levels of government (federal and state) check each other and then are further checked by

the three sub branches of each level. It also encourages more political participation as it increases

the amount of ways for American citizens to engage in politics. The Census of Governments lists

89,000 state and local governments in the country that Americans can work within (USA Census

Bureau). And the 2021 edition of the Book of States lists 7,571 state legislature seats that will be

open for re-election in the next 4 years (Book of the States, 2021, 219). Comparatively,

Indonesia, which has roughly the same population that we do, only has 4,625 public

administration workers (Sekretariat Kabinet Census, 2020). It is clear that federalism grants

many opportunities for political involvement, and with that more diversity in representative

viewpoints. This large bureaucracy has its flaws though, which will be explored in the next

paragraph.

These layers of control make certain that no division of government becomes

overwhelmingly powerful. However, less power means that an entity has to be much slower to

get things done. The federal government can do almost nothing outside of its constitutional

powers, and it can be frustrating to have to abide by a document and its rules older than the

country itself. When the founding fathers included the 10th amendment into the constitution,

their vagueness with the flexibility of the different clauses means that there are constant
 Drayton10

loopholes the federal government uses to oversee the states that are meant to balance out their

power.

The concept of coercive federalism came about in the 1960s when the United States

government started to attach strings to the grants it would send out to the 50 states. Eventually,

the way the levels of government interacted with each other shifted from cooperative federalism

(where the national government would dish out money with no specific standards or expectations

in how it would be spent) to coercive federalism (where states had to abide by what the federal

government was trying to accomplish to receive the funding that they so need). For example,

when the federal government was pushing for a standard 21 or over drinking age limit, they went

about “coercing” states to abide by it by threatening to cut federal highway funding by 10% per

year (Government Accountability Office, 1987). The Supreme Court case South Dakota v. Dole

(1987) upheld this conditional grant, which set a precedent that the federal government still

utilizes to this day (South Dakota v. Dole, 1987).

Due to the lack of clarification regarding the role of the federal government within the

education system, there has been much push and pull from both levels of government regarding

it. One of the first examples of the federal government interceding into the state authority over

monitoring the school systems was Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which made it illegal in

all 50 states to segregate schools based on color (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). This gave

the federal government the power to enforce equal access to education which led to the Lyndon

B. Johnson’s White House pushing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which

focused on providing money to support programs designated for children living in poverty

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965).

 Drayton11

States could receive more money towards their education operations if they met the

requirements outlined in the act, including but not limited to: increasing the number of

low-income students a school would have, hosting students with physical and mental disabilities,

and increasing focus on bilingual classes (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965).

While the funding was minor (only around 2-3% of a district's budget) it still greatly incentivized

states to bend to the federal government’s will and again set a major precedent for federal

intervention into one of the state’s reserved powers (Wrabel, Saultz, Duque 2016, 3-4). This is a

major example of coercive federalism and the carrot before the stick approach that the federal

government would utilize to overcome the 10th amendment and better enforce the 14th

amendment. In regards to education, besides some minor reformations to the ESEA (specifically

within the Reagan administration), that would be the last time the federal government would

invoke its authority into the education system until the introduction of the No Child Left Behind

Act signed by George W. Bush in 2001.

The NCLB act was possibly the most bellicose attempt of overriding the role the federal

government was meant to play when it came to education within the United States. What was

seemingly a symbol of unity amongst the divided politics of the United States Congress and a

correct step in the direction of equality for all the citizens of America, contemporary analysis

allows us to see the gaps in thought that occurred with the actual implementation of the policies

included with the NCLB (McGuinn 2005, 54-55). The act stated that states were to allow the

National Assessment of Educational Progress to provide standardized tests (with some levity

towards the states in developing those standardized tests) to compare the differences in academic

performances in K-12 students (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001). The states were expected to

have yearly progression according to the standards the federal government imposed, and if those
 Drayton12

standards were not met some consequences would be imposed which grew harsher and harsher

as the years went on.

One year as a school identified as “in need of improvement” meant that that school was

required to allow its students to transfer to another public school, after two years the school was

expected to budget for more remedial classes and summer sessions, and so forth (No Child Left

Behind Act, 2001). The most extreme punishments came after five consecutive years of a school

not meeting the progression standards, which would manifest in requiring the school to reopen as

a charter school, replace all of the staff who were in charge of the operations of education, or

turn the school over entirely to “a private company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness,”

(Hursh 2007, 297).

The unrelenting consequences imposed on states that did not meet the criteria provoked

carelessness and desperation. These schools started to take whatever measures necessary to get

their students to perform adequately. This is where the saying “teaching to the test” developed, as

teachers were to prioritize getting their students to have higher marks on standardized tests as

opposed to advancing their education (Rubin 2001, 465). These consequences and the ways

schools had to deal with them also perpetrated a cycle where instead of dedicating funding to the

betterment of their students (in a way that they would see the best fit) they had to instead spend

money on programs that the national government believed would be more beneficial. Comparing

the United States education system within a federalist society to an education system in a country

with a unitary system may provide an explanation for why the national government has to work

in the ways that they do.

A compelling argument for the adoption of a unitary education system in America can be

drawn from Japan's education model. Japan's nationalized education structure is steered by a
 Drayton13

singular administrative entity, ensuring uniformity in the curriculum and educational

expectations across the country. Unlike the U.S. where education is distributed through a

federated system, Japan’s unitary system of governance allows its national government to exert

stronger control over educational affairs. The absence of standardized testing is another

characteristic of Japan's education system that deviates from the American model, focusing more

on comprehensive knowledge acquisition rather than performance on high-stakes tests. This

unique combination of uniform curriculum and reduced emphasis on testing may contribute to

Japan's superior education outcomes. In fact, according to the Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development, Japan's education score stands at 520, surpassing the United

States by 25 points as of 2021 (OECD, 2021). The Japanese model's apparent success, as shown

by the higher education scores, is primarily attributed to its national education policy. This

prompts an interesting proposition: if the United States were to adopt a similar unitary approach,

aligning curriculum nationwide and focusing less on standardized testing, could it too experience

an uplift in its educational outcomes? While it is important to consider cultural, social, and

historical factors in this comparison, the merits of a unitary education system warrant further

exploration in the American context.

As interesting as it is to explore, the realism of the situation is that no matter which way

its shaped, American federalism is here to stay and with that so is the neverending negotiation

between the different levels of government. The culture of the country revolves around distrust

of centralized government. It has been an inherent part of American society since the declaration

of independence from Great Britain. Most attempts by the federal government of intervening in

the education system have proven to be detrimental to the citizens who participate in said system.

This is due to the nature of the inflexibility that comes with federal legislation and the lack of
 Drayton14

ability to effectively monitor the progress of that legislation. The No Child Left Behind Act is

the most proficient example of this problem, and despite the many endeavors to reform the act it

is still remembered as one of the most negative pieces of congressional legislation in the 21st

century.

Despite this, the federal government still has not given up on trying to strengthen the

public school system. In 2011, during the Obama administration, the Secretary of Education

Arne Duncan sent out waivers that states could apply for to overcome the consequences that

would be dished out to them, however, the waivers were again attached with conditions that the

states could not deny. Duncan required the states to fall in line with his proposals and ideas for

the national public school system, and as 80% of schools were underperforming with their

requirements most of them did what Duncan asked to get the waiver (Black 2015, abstract).

These actions have since been declared unconstitutional and were a part of the outcry that caused

Duncan to resign from his position at the end of 2015. These findings show that while America

would certainly find some benefit from a unified, nationalized curriculum the constitutional

systems that have been in place since the founding of the country would never allow them to

become a reality.

Discussion:

The matter of national education is something that impacts everyone. Any country that

sends its new citizens through incorrectly set systems can have long term damaging effects on

not just the individual students but on their future society as a whole. The content put in

textbooks, that the educators teach, that is sent home with students will dictate the path the

country walks on. Despite this, there is only so much information one can jam into someone’s

developmental period before they face overload and burnout. Packaging and subsidizing
 Drayton15

information in a way that is digestible for students who start as young as 4 and end as early as 20

is already such a difficult quandary, and it gets increasingly muddled when 50 different states are

given absolute authority to do it differently. Any attempts of nationalizing education have failed

when the core of the United States government makes it so difficult to do so. No Child Left

Behind is considered a failure, but it was less about the intent (solidifying a national presence in

the education of US citizens). And more about the functionality, which was only the way it was

because of the barriers presented by American federalism.

This analysis of standardized education has underlined the challenge lawmakers face

when attempting policy unification in the face of American federalism. Countries that have a

more unitary form of government have much more flexibility with their legislative processes. Do

the benefits of federalism outweigh the negatives that are associated with a system that is meant

to harden the process of collective power? Would a different system of government allow for a

better society, or would it have led to the tyranny that the founding fathers worked so hard to

prevent? While that debate still rages even in modern-day politics, the findings of this paper

make the question more complex. If the constitution had included matters of schooling into the

enumerated powers of the federal government, they would have a more cohesive way to shape

their future citizens in a much more productive way. But is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

Contemporary politics has proven The United States is polarized, especially over the

nation’s history. The discussion and debate around America’s civil war, in particular, has

contributed to much of the discourse between the Northerner and Southerner populations. This

debate serves as a symbol of the failure of the American education system. Between arguments

over the display of the confederate flag, the memorialization of the rebellious generals, and more
 Drayton16

have proven that there is a distinct difference in the way that Americans view a topic that has

been prevalent for more nearly 200 years.

The core of this split comes from the way the educational content is separately presented

in all 50 states. A student in Vermont learns a much different version of America’s history than a

student in Alabama. While a student in the North learns of the fierce tensions over topics like

slavery and how the South longed to keep blacks as their property, a student in the South hears

about the major economic differences and the glorious battle for state’s rights. If there were some

sort of concrete version of the nation’s history that everyone could agree to serve to American

students, there would be less debate over the events that transpired in history and more about

how to move forward.

However, it is important to note the potential drawbacks of a unipolar, nationalized

education system, particularly in relation to the content that is taught. This concept becomes

quite clear when examining the education systems of Japan and China, where there have been

accusations of history sanitization. For instance, these nations have been criticized for presenting

a skewed version of historical events in their curriculum, such as glossing over or entirely

omitting controversial wartime actions like the Tiananmen Square Massacre and the Japanese

invasions of Korea and China. With one central authority dictating the education policy and

curriculum, there's a risk that it can lead to a one-dimensional narrative, downplaying or ignoring

perspectives and historical realities that might cast the nation in a negative light. In contrast, the

United States' decentralized approach to education policy, despite its shortcomings, allows for a

more diverse representation of historical events and narratives. Schools and districts have the

flexibility to teach from a variety of resources, each with different viewpoints. This variation,

albeit uneven and dependent on the local context, can foster critical thinking by exposing
 Drayton17

students to a range of perspectives and encouraging them to form their own informed

conclusions. While a unitary education system might provide uniformity and possibly improve

average test scores, it's essential to consider the broader implications for critical thinking, civic

discourse, and historical understanding.

Despite the question of this paper, any changes towards a more nationalized education

policy would be met with extreme distrust of higher government by American citizens. In a Pew

Research Survey conducted in May, 2022, only around 20% of American citizens said that they

trusted the government “to do what is right just about always/most of the time” which is

staggeringly low compared to other countries (Pew, 2022). The distrust of central authority is not

surprising given that the country sprouted from the roots of rebellion, but it is still shocking to

think that in a room of 100 Americans, 80 of them would say they distrusted the governing body

of the society they live in. Scholars say the open distrust began during the Kennedy

administration, after the infamous “Bay of Pigs” invasion that occurred without the American

people being somewhat aware. Instances past that like Nixon’s attempted break-in of the

Democratic National Center, Project MKUlrta (where the CIA conducted illegal human

experimentation through the administration of psychedelics in an effort to streamline

interrogations), and more recently the crisis in the Middle East have put the federal government’s

mistakes on full blast to the American public. This coupled with the invention of mainstream

news and the internet allowing for absolute scrutinization of political figures has snowballed into

an effect where it is almost comedic how much the average citizen hates “big government” in the

United States.

Politicians feed off of the public’s distrust of government during campaigns. Like when

former President Donald Trump ran on a slogan of “draining the swamp,” in an attempt to appeal
 Drayton18

to these distrustful voters. Sayings like “never trust a politician” and “Washington D.C. is to

lying what cheese is to Wisconsin'' symbolize the national disgust towards the federal

government (Miller, 2010). The sentiment is understandable, it is easy to point fingers at the

people supposed to be “in-charge” when things are bad, and it's easier when those same people

are hundreds of miles away from you at the capital. Potential state legislators run with promises

of battling the beast of the national government, in advocating for state interests intensely within

the system of American federalism. All of this combined provides an extremely pessimistic view

that there would ever be a constitutional change to the way education operates in the United

States constitution (either a two-thirds vote through Congress or two-thirds of state legislators

calling for a constitutional conference). It is clear that the focus should not be on changing the

system entirely, but thinking around it.

Small, but simple strides are already being made towards fighting the inequalities that

plague the American school system. More resources to underfunded, low-income schools would

balance out the disproportionately affected minority students in America. The Elementary and

Secondary Education Act previously mentioned was a great example of a successful “carrot” that

the federal government could offer to overcome the barriers of federalism. Though former

Secretary of Education Betsy Devos is famously quoted as saying “the notion that spending more

money is going to bring about different results is ill-placed and ill-advised,” research suggests

otherwise. Adult wages were boosted, graduation rates were increased, and drop-outs rates

decreased in districts that had their spending increased by 10% over a ten-year period (Jackson,

2015). There have also been more conversations revolving around whether suspensions and

expulsions are more helpful or harmful towards a productive learning environment.

Conclusion
 Drayton19

The interplay between the federal and state levels of governance in shaping the U.S.

education system, as underscored by this paper, is a complex and multi-faceted issue. On one

hand, the flexibility and localized control that federalism provides can lead to educational

approaches that are more tailored to the specific needs of each state's demographic. This was

seen in how various states navigated the unprecedented disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic,

adapting their educational delivery to unique local circumstances. On the other hand, this paper

also highlighted the potential benefits of a unitary system, like Japan's, where uniformity in

education policy has led to significant academic success and the regression of school

inequalities. However, such a system could also run the risk of oversimplification and history

sanitization, detracting from the rich variety of perspectives essential for a robust and diverse

educational experience.

The impact of these contrasting models was brought sharply into focus during the

Covid-19 crisis, when the lack of a unified national response led to a variety of educational

experiences across the country. This experience underscored the relevance of a broader

discussion on the national government’s role in K-12 education, a discussion that seems more

pressing than ever in the current climate. Nevertheless, the reality of American federalism, with

its roots deep in the nation's history and culture, suggests that a shift towards a completely

nationalized education system is unlikely. But this doesn't mean the conversation should end

there. The statistics and experiences cited in this paper point towards a need for a more nuanced,

hybrid approach, one that leverages the benefits of both systems while mitigating their

downsides. The education of citizens should indeed be a paramount priority for any government.

And while the nation may not yet take pride in a perfect system, it is through such debates and

the exploration of these complex issues that it will move closer towards a more equitable and
 Drayton20

effective education system for all Americans. The challenge is to strike a balance between

federal oversight for consistency and state autonomy for localized applicability, a goal that is

complex, but not unattainable. The future of education in America may well lie in this nuanced

understanding of federalism, blending national standards with local adaptations.

 Drayton21

References

Black, D. W. (2015). Federalizing Education by Waiver? Vanderbilt Law Review, 68(3),

607-680.

Brown v. Board of Education 74 S. Ct. 686 (1954)

Council. 2021. The Book of the States 2021. ‎Council of State Government.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, P.L. 89-10, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (1965).

Haubenreich, John E. 2012. “Education and the Constitution.” Peabody Journal of Education

87(4): 436–54.

Hursh, David. 2007. “Exacerbating Inequality: The Failed Promise of the No Child Left behind

Act.” Race Ethnicity and Education 10(3): 295–308.

Indonesian Census Bureau. 2021. “Indonesia Releases 2020 Census Results.” Sekretariat

Kabinet Republik Indonesia.

https://setkab.go.id/en/statistics-indonesia-releases-2020-census-results/.

Jackson, C. Kirabo, Rucker C. Johnson, and Claudia Persico. 2015. “The Effects of School

Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance

Reforms.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131(1): 157–218.

McCarthey, Sarah J. 2008. “The Impact of No Child Left behind on Teachers’ Writing

Instruction.” Written Communication 25(4): 462–505.

McGuinn, P. 2005. “The National Schoolmarm: No Child Left behind and the New Educational

Federalism.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 35(1): 41–68.

 Drayton22

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

OECD. 2015. “OECD Better Life Index.” Oecdbetterlifeindex.org.

https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/.

Owings, William, Leslie S. Kaplan, Steve Myran, and Patrick Doyle. 2017. “How Variations in

State Policies and Practices Impact Student Outcomes: What Principals and Professors

Need to Know.” NASSP Bulletin 101(4): 299–314.

Pew Research Center. 2022. “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2022.” Pew Research Center -

U.S. Politics & Policy.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/

Rubin, Daniel Ian. 2011. “The Disheartened Teacher: Living in the Age of Standardisation,

High-Stakes Assessments, and No Child Left behind (NCLB).” Changing English 18(4):

407–16.

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 93 S. Ct. 1278

South Dakota v. Dole, 107 S. Ct. 2793 (1987)

United States. Drinking-Age Laws : An Evaluation Synthesis of Their Impact on Highway Safety

: Report to the Chairman Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Committee on

Public Works and Transportation House of Representatives. Office 1987.

US Census Bureau. 2017. “US Census Bureau.” www.census.gov.

https://www.census.gov/econ/overview/go0100.html#:~:text=A%20three%2Dphased%20

state%20and (December 14, 2022).

 Drayton23

U.S. Const. art. I, s. 8.

Wong, K. K. 2009. “Toward Federalizing Education Policy?” Publius: The Journal of

Federalism 40(1): 226–33.