Department Of Education Federalism

Federalism
There are many advantages to various national policies that are implemented by various departments of the federal government. The advantage here is efficiency and one department that does this well is the United States Department of Education. Through its policies upholding the 2015 Every Student Succeed Act, the US Department of Education is able to hold states accountable for the improvement of every student’s educational outcomes. According to Darrow (2016), The ESSA narrows the role of federal government and provides for more state- and district-led accountability, particularly in regard to testing. The United States Department of Education’s oversight of the policies outlined in the ESSA is efficient because the power is shared
among federal, state and local government. This sharing of powers is efficient because it allows states to step in and problem solve on their own without creating a “one-size fits all” approach to law and policy making, which in turns creates more efficient approaches. Without this model, some states will become more efficient than others, creating more problems at the federal level. The policies implemented by the US Department of Education allow each state to come up with its own solutions, making government more efficient. To make federalism efficient multiple parties must work together to reach a common goal education is one that needs input from all levels of government and policies like the ones outlined in the ESSA do exactly that.
One way to maintain the advantage of efficiency of the ESSA is to allow the US Department of Education to regulate quality assurance of state’s implementation of ESSA policies.
Quality is a very subjective thing for many and education is one of the top priorities for many as well. With this in mind and the principles of federalism, quality should be determined by a number of factors. To be efficient, the US Department of Education needs to take into account these various factors when determining the quality of implementation of each state. According to Fine & Levin-Waldman (2016), Federalism is a government system where power and authority are shared by national and state governments with ultimate authority derived from the people. Therefore, there should be quality checks at the federal level, state level and with input from the people. Essentially creating a checks and balances type of system for the quality of education and the implementation of the policies outlined in the
ESSA.
On the other hand, there are also disadvantages to national policies that are implemented by one department of the federal government.
Everything has its advantages and disadvantages, the US Department of Education is one agency that does as well. The main disadvantage is the creation of inequalities between different states. This is evident in the NCLB waivers that many states had at one time. According to Klein (2016), the department made it clear that the eight states without waivers will no longer have to continue to set aside 20 percent of their Title I funding, which targets low-income students, for tutoring and school choice -- a requirement under the NCLB law for schools that missed achievement targets. With some states being allowed to access more funds than others and identify their own needs, it can create an imbalance of access and inequalities among states. Federalism is great when all levels of government are involved, but there also has to be somewhat of a checks and balances in place to ensure that the policies outlined in the ESSA are being followed by every state and that each state is getting the right amount of access and assistance to ensure full
implementation.
One way to improve the disadvantage of inequalities among states is to also allow the US Department of Education to regulate state spending of federal funding. There are obviously policies in place to ensure that this is already happening, but with more and more power being shifted to the state level, there are bound to be inconsistencies. According to Klein (2016), Michael Kirst, who worked on implementation of the first version of the ESEA during President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration is happy to be shrugging off NCLB for good, and especially to be gaining access to federal money that the state has had to set aside for the law’s mandatory interventions—school choice and tutoring—which he saw as largely ineffective. Some states are just in greater need, but does that mean they should be getting more resources then other states? Some may argue yes and others no, but there needs to be some sort of regulation that ensures every state is equal. This is where the federal government should have more power, the power to step in and regulate and ensure educational equality for everyone. Access and performance do not always mean quality.