The goals of education and the distribution of authority over standards and curricula exemplify how federalism should function.
The Big Picture
Education is fundamentally the purview of the states. The federal government has been involved since the 19th century, although it later established a more formal role. After World War II, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was established at the cabinet level. Under the Carter Administration, the Education Department was established when HEW was split into the Department of Health and Human Services and the Education Department.
While dismantling the Education Department has been a conservative dream since its inception, the department was firmly established by the end of the Reagan administration. It was not until the second Trump administration that its dissolution gained any real traction, although its dissolution would still require an act of Congress, as it had been created by one.
The federal role, up until the Second Trump Administration, has typically involved funding, civil rights enforcement, and data gathering. Under the Trump Administration, it is unclear what the continued role will be for the smallest of the cabinet departments.
In Part 1, we discussed school choice. In Part 2, we dove into the nuts and bolts of school funding. In Part 3, we'll discuss the goals of education.
Zooming In
Before we dive in, we need to establish how things work.
The federal government provides some funding support, while the states set educational standards. The local education authority (LEA) then sets the curriculum, and the classroom teacher uses it to teach students to meet the academic standards that the state deems necessary for graduation. The debates around curriculum and standards have cooled somewhat since the peak of the Common Core State Standards, although they have shifted in other ways. Nevertheless, the confusion between standards and curricula persists.
The federal government has no role in setting educational standards; the knowledge and skills that students must demonstrate to be promoted to the next grade or to earn a diploma or certificate through the public school system are established by state boards of education or state school superintendents (titles and processes vary), depending on each state's educational structure. In the case of the Common Core State Standards, a consortium of states was created to make standardized testing more cost-effective, recognizing the substantial commonality among states and allowing a state supplemental exam to be added to the standard exam used by the consortium, thus addressing the needs of state-specific standards and making it much cheaper for states to administer tests. During the debates over the Common Core State Standards, it was often mistakenly claimed that the federal government was forcing states to adopt these educational standards when, in fact, the states were coming together on their own accord. This is federalism.
The current debates around education often center on curricula—the tools used to impart the knowledge and skills required by the standards. This is where Florida's "Don't Say Gay law" and many school library book bans come into play. This is also where Critical Race Theory was challenged during the period between the implementation of Common Core and the discussion regarding the "Don't Say Gay" law. Curricula are most frequently adopted by the LEA, although in some instances, individual schools may be granted the authority to make their own decisions based on their unique circumstances. Additionally, some states may approve multiple sets of curricula for the LEAs to choose from.
The goals of education and the distribution of authority over standards and curricula exemplify how federalism should function. Local Education Agencies (LEAs) understand their communities' needs in shaping graduates better than anyone hundreds or thousands of miles away. For instance, regions with a strong agricultural sector may provide specialized pathways for students interested in pursuing careers in agriculture, ensuring they are well-prepared for work in that field. Similarly, industrial areas may offer comprehensive options for students aspiring to become machinists, pipefitters, or other similar trades.
This specialization also extends to the humanities. The author believes everyone should be introduced to William Faulkner and William Alexander Percy, particularly in Mississippi. The same applies to Flannery O'Connor in Georgia and Stephen King in Maine. California ensures that students learn about Cesar Chavez, while Texas wouldn't be Texas without a discussion about The Alamo. These are essential topics of regional significance, illustrating the importance of local expertise in curriculum development.
Each student should have the opportunity not only to pursue a college track education but also to study career and technical education, graduating with the skills needed for their local economy. Even better, they should graduate with one or more industry-recognized certifications. Agriculture and high-tech manufacturing are not evenly distributed across LEAs, and LEAs need the flexibility to adopt relevant curricula.
This approach also allows for the laboratories of the states to produce new and innovative ways of doing things that can then be adopted and localized in other states. Or should they not work, then the states know one more way not to build a lightbulb.
