The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

A brief history - 1965-2010

By Elizabeth Pinkerton, September 2010

The massive and comprehensive federal education program, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, most recently reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, is often taken for granted by educators as well as the general public. However, as we celebrated the 45^th anniversary in 2010, it is time to reflect upon what has happened in the past four and a half decades. During that time, significant changes took place in the federal government’s role in improving equal opportunities for learning and telling local school districts and schools what they must do in providing education to children. It appears in 2010 that even greater changes are on the horizon.

April 9, 1965 marked the date for this important piece of legislation that was a component of President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” This is how the program that we know of today as Title I was described in the first ESEA (Section 201):

“In recognition of the special educational needs of low-income families and the impact that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs, the Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance….. to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations of children from low-income families to expand and improve their educational programs by various means (including preschool programs) which contribute to meeting the special educational programs of educationally deprived children.”

Those are important words that have guided the program for the past 45 years, but with this legislation was a somewhat companion program piece that has continued to be established across the nation as a way to serve low income families. This is the Head Start program that started from the Office of Economic Opportunity that was focused on getting children ready for first grade. Today we have Title I from the Education Department and Head Start from the Department of Health and Human Services—two programs that focus on low income families. Although they have different goals and purposes, they both carry out the intent of President Johnson’s vision.

As we look back into the origins of ESEA and the events of that remarkable year of 1965, we can only be impressed at how this modest beginning of federal involvement in education continues to impact us today in the 21^st century. Lyndon Johnson’s legacy led us to the federal programs that we take for granted today as well as many others that could not have been imagined 45 years ago. These programs from yesterday determine what we do today and what we will do tomorrow and in the future.

In 1994 the reauthorization of ESEA, the program was called the Improving America’s School Act (IASA), and in it was proclaimed the following:

 “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the cornerstone of Federal Aid to elementary and secondary schools, embodies the Federal Government’s commitment to providing funds for the education of children living in high poverty communities. Collectively, its programs provide funds to States, districts and schools to improve teaching and learning to help all children, especially high risk children, meet challenging State standards.” 

The reauthorized ESEA that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002 moved educators from IASA to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. There are many changes but the greatest were in the complex area of accountability based on required state standards and assessments. There were clear designations of proficiency in reading, math and science and stronger consequences for schools that did not make adequate yearly progress. School improvement efforts focused on parental choice of another school for their children and supplementary education services from outside providers.

There were new provisions for non-public schools to participate in all programs, and in addition to Title I (as it was originally called, although for many years the reference was to Chapter I), other programs focused on requirements for highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals and services for English Learners. Also new were requirements for testing at all grade levels from 3-8 and once in grades 9-11, and determination of adequate yearly progress for all students including the disaggregation of assessment data for subgroups of ethnic-racial groups, students with disabilities and English Learners, and those from low income families. On top of all that, a rigid 95% participation rate was required for all groups, and high schools had to take into consideration their graduation rates.   

Most educators think that the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) was the beginning of the federal role in education—but it was not. What may come as a surprise to many is that the federal role in education began long before 1965.

The year that our Congress and President became involved in education was actually 1787!! It was in the 18^th century, 223 years ago, that Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance. This law authorized land grants for the establishment of educational institutions—many of the colleges and universities that continue to provide services to our communities. A long list of federal involvement actions to support and improve education followed in the 19^th century:

v      1802 - Military Academy authorized (Naval Academy, 1845)

v      1862 - Morrill Act – public land grants for agricultural and mechanical colleges

v      1867 – Department of Education Act

v      1876 – U. S. Coast Guard Academy    (Treasury Dept.)

v      Thee list got even longer in the 20th century:

v      1911 – State Marine Schools in seaport cities

v      1917 – Smith-Hughes Act for grants to states for vocational education

v      1918 – Vocational Rehabilitation Act – training of World War I veterans

v      1920 – Smith-Bankhead Act – grants to states for vocational rehabilitation

v      1935 – Agricultural Experimental Stations  -- Customs receipts to be used for                                           commodities for School Lunch Programs

v      1936 – Merchant Marine Academy

v      1937 – Public Health Service Fellowship Program (National Cancer Institute Act)

v      1941 – Construction, maintenance, operation of schools in federally impacted areas

v      1943 – Vocational Rehabilitation – disabled veterans

v      1943 -  School Lunch programs

v      1944 – Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill)

v      1944 -  Surplus Property  to Educational Institutions

v      1946 – National School Lunch Act

v      1948 – Information/Education Exchange Act  - (other countries)

v      1949 – Federal Property Act – surplus                                  

v      1950 - Construction and operation of schools in federally affected areas

v       1950 - Housing Act – loans for college housing

v      1954 – U. S. Army Air Force Academy

v      1954 - Educational Research – Higher Education

v      1954 - School Milk Program

v      1956 -  Library Services Act – rural libraries

v      1957 -  Practical Nursing Act – training

v      1958 -  NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT

v      (Science, Mathematics, Modern Foreign Languages, etc.)

v      1961 – Area Redevelopment Act – training

v      1962 – Manpower Development and Training Act (improving skills of unemployed and underemployed)

v                  Migration and Refugee Assistance Act

v      1963 – Health Professions Ed Assistance Act

v      1963 - Vocational Education Act

v      1963 - Higher Education Facilities Act

v     1964 – Civil Rights Act

v     1964 - Economic Opportunity Act

      o   (Job Corps, college study program for low income,

      o   welfare training, school instructional materials)

All these federal efforts led to the most significant legislation of all, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 that authorized grants for elementary and secondary school programs for children of low income families; school library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials for school children; supplementary educational centers and services; strengthening of state education agencies; and educational research and research training.

That is how it has been since 1965 as each reauthorization added to the original law, and other laws were created to supplement and extend the original intent.

v  1970 – ESEA extension – authorized comprehensive planning and evaluation grants to state and local education agencies

v  1975 – Education of All Handicapped Act

v  1979 – U. S. Department of Education was created

v  1984 – Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act

v  1988 –   ESEA - Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments

o   (Chapter 1,Chapter 2, Bilingual Ed, Math-Science Ed, Magnet Schools,

§  Impact Aid, Indian Education, Adult Education etc.)

v  1988 -Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act

v  1994 –  ESEA - Improving America’s School Act (IASA)

v  (Title I, professional development, technical assistance, safe and drug free schools and provisions promoting school equity)

v  1994 - Goals 2000: Educate America Act

Throughout the 1990s, the goal of the federal role in education became more and more clear with each piece of legislation. Clearly, the direction was to provide support to stimulate state and local school reform. The questions that were frequently asked were these as we moved to NCLB: Are there changes needed in Federal Statutes that would make Goals 2000, ESEA and related programs more effective tools for supporting comprehensive state and school district reform? How can greater public school choice be encouraged within the public school system? How can standards be created and implemented in the classroom? How can technology be utilized to support teaching and learning? How can strategies be encourage and implemented that address the needs of children who are most at risk of failing to meet state standards? How can school environments that are most conducive to learning be promoted?

By the beginning of 2000, many new issues began to surface with the coming reauthorization of ESEA. There were extended day and year, early childhood programs, the idea that children should only be instructed by certified staff, and that perhaps outside technical assistance should be required, and that only research based practices should be used. There were the public school choice options, bilingual professional development, technology and coming on strong, the entire issue of ACCOUNTABILITY. Issues included the schoolwide threshold percentage, the priority to serve elementary students, paraprofessional training, and assessments. These were some of the many questions: Should parents at School Improvement schools be allowed to choose another school? Public? Private? Should schools be required to report achievement by racial and economic groups? Should the schoolwide marker be moved to less than 50%? How about 25%? How about zero%? Should a district be required to serve elementary schools first? Or should only elementary schools be served? Should paraprofessionals be required to have more education? Should private schools be assured of consultation with a third party and have a right of appeal? Should Title I schools issue Report Cards with specific performance data? Should English Learners be tested in English after three years of school? What should be the determination of a highly qualified teacher? How can uniform standards and assessments be assured? How should Adequate Yearly Progress be measured? How should children with special needs such as those with disabilities and those who are learning English be assessed?  What about the recruitment and training of teachers and other staff?  What about pre-kindergarten instruction to assure that children are ready for school? What about after school programs?

Many of these issues were incorporated into the No Child Left Behind program, but some are waiting on the sidelines to be considered in the next reauthorization. And, the most controversial issue of all that has dominated the picture in 2010 was the role of teacher evaluation and accountability based on student achievement and test scores. Stay tuned!