summary of education policies

Get Email Updates from Ballotpedia

First Name *

Please complete the Captcha above

Ballotpedia on Facebook

  Share this page

  Follow Ballotpedia

Ballotpedia on Twitter

Education policy in the united states.

• 1.1 Colonial era
• 1.2 Founding era
• 1.3 Civic education
• 1.4.1 Common schools
• 1.4.2 Religious schools
• 1.4.3 Role of the federal government
• 1.5.1 Secondary schools
• 1.5.2 Progressives
• 1.5.3 Role of federal government
• 2 Current education policy
• 3 Major federal legislation
• 5 External links
• 6 Footnotes

Education policy refers to the plan and underlying principles for educating students. The goals of educational policy have evolved in the United States as society and culture have changed, and are continually being debated and revised.

In the United States, education policy has been important since the first settlements of the Puritans, when the goal was mainly religious. Today many see the goal of education as learning skills necessary to participate in a global economy. While it is generally agreed that gaining certain fundamental knowledge and skills is important for individual success and happiness, civic order and economic prosperity, there is still much disagreement about what should be learned and how it should be taught.

Major educational policy issues involve the following questions:

• Who should be educated and by whom?
• What should be taught, and who decides this?
• Where and when should students be educated?
• Who is responsible for the delivery of education?
• How much should education cost and who should pay for it?
• What are the standards for measuring success?
• What should and can be done to correct failure?

The interested parties or immediate stakeholders include: students, parents, teachers, school administrators, professors and education schools, elected and non-elected officials, reformers and businesses which rely on an educated work force.

Education policies often pit these stakeholders against each other and often come down to who should decide what is best for children. One main tension has been between the rights of parents to determine how their children are educated, and public authority which passes laws, collects taxes and sets up schools for the common good of society. Within the government, there is often tension is between local, state and federal offices over control of various aspects of education content, funding and delivery. In addition, groups such as teachers’ unions, parents' groups and reform organizations often disagree with each other and among themselves about the most basic issues.

Traditionally in the United States, education has been primarily the responsibility of parents and local and state government. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about education, and therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, the role of the federal government is limited. [3] Education is funded largely by local and state government, with the federal government contributing less than 13 percent of total education expenditures for elementary and secondary education in the fiscal year 2011-2012. [4]

However, since education is overseen and carried out by so many different state and local entities there is much variation and inequality among school systems. For this reason, some reformers advocate giving the federal government a larger role in setting policy and standards. Others argue for greater local and parental control, and fear that a distant bureaucracy cannot serve the best interests of their children.

Colonial era

Education in America in the early years was primarily private and religious, and focused mainly on learning to read and write in order to read the Bible and new laws of the settlements. The first education law was enacted by the Massachusetts General Court in 1642 requiring parents and guardians to “make certain their charges could read and understand the principles of religion and the laws of the Commonwealth.” [5] Most children were taught at home, but because not all parents could or would comply, the Massachusetts Law of 1647, the Old Deluder Satan Act, was enacted to require that “towns of fifty families hire a schoolmaster who would teach children to read and write. Towns of a hundred families must have a grammar schoolmaster who could prepare children to attend Harvard College.” [6] The first government-owned and operated public high school, Boston Latin School, was founded in 1635. [7]

The prominent minister, Cotton Mather, following Martin Luther and the Reformation in Europe, preached in the strongest terms for the establishment of schools to prevent degeneracy and social disorder:

The religious component of education was predominant, and the Latin schools provided a classical education meant to prepare young men to study theology or law at Harvard. Girls were educated mainly at home or in Dame schools, which were private homes where women taught rudimentary reading and writing while tending their homes. [9]

Founding era

By the time of the American Revolution, education in the colonies was less influenced by Europe and geared more toward practical matters of commerce and agriculture. In 1749 Benjamin Franklin founded the private Philadelphia Academy offering a practical, more secular curriculum. During the 17th and 18th centuries there were many different types of private or semi-public arrangements for the education of children, with curricula ranging from traditional Latin and Greek curricula to more practical utilitarian studies typical in English grammar schools. Academies combined elements of both. [10]

There was also great inequity as to who was educated. Generally girls were educated at home, and few students from poor families, American Indians, or African Americans were educated formally, except by Quakers who established charity schools to serve these groups.

Civic education

Thomas Jefferson viewed educating the common man as important for promoting and preserving the democratic ideal; in order to preserve their liberty, citizens needed not just reading and arithmetic to manage their affairs, but also an understanding of history to understand their rights and duties. Benjamin Rush, a prominent doctor and founding father, called for public schools in Pennsylvania , and even a national system of education. Many opposed this plan because they did not want to pay for it through higher taxes. He argued that all would benefit because education would lead to less crime and degeneracy. Nevertheless, there were still few completely publicly funded schools, and nothing approaching a standard curriculum or unified theory of education. Early schooling involved primarily learning to read for religious purposes, and learning some rudimentary arithmetic. After the revolution, civic literacy became an added component, as seen in Noah Webster’s first “textbook” in 1783. This was a speller that emphasized patriotic and moral values of the newly independent colonies while teaching grammar and spelling. [11] [12]

The 19th century

Common schools.

In the 1820s Massachusetts and then Connecticut passed laws requiring every town to choose a school committee to organize public schools into a unified system. The chief advocate of government schools, or “common schools,” was Horace Mann, who was appointed Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education in 1837. He introduced age-grading, and also set up "normal schools" to train teachers. He argued for free public schooling as the best way to civilize children both morally and socially. In response to the great wave of Roman Catholic immigration beginning in the 1840s, public schooling was seen as a way of integrating children of immigrants, and counteracting the presumed bad influence of immigrant parents. This began the “Common School Movement,” during which local governments set up non-sectarian schools for the general populace paid for by local and state governments. Critics of the movement included Catholics who complained of religious bias, taxpayers who did not want to pay for public schools for someone else's children, and those who saw government control as trampling individual liberty and parental rights. [13]

Despite these objections reformers succeeded during the second half of the century in getting all states to set up systems of common schools. Local schools boards, school districts and teachers' associations came into existence. The Southern states lagged behind the North, and it was not until after the Civil War that they set up legally mandated schools, which were racially segregated. By 1900 the majority of children aged 6-13 were enrolled in government elementary schools. As the power of the educational establishment expanded, there was a sense among some reformers, bureaucrats, politicians and teachers, that parents were "unfit guardians" and children must be "forced into school," according to one Massachusetts Teacher article written in 1851. The Wisconsin Teacher Association in 1865 was not alone in declaring that "children are the property of the state." [14]

Religious schools

Although the public schools were officially non-sectarian the inherited Protestant bent to the teaching prompted Catholics and Lutherans to set up a parallel system of parochial schools to preserve their religion and culture. Opposition to parochial schools led to the so-called " Blaine amendments ," which prohibited the use of public funds for parochial schools. Although the original amendment proposed in 1868 ultimately was not passed by Congress, such amendments were adopted by many states and still affect school choice policy today.

Role of the federal government

In addition to expanded state control of schools, the federal government began to play a role. In 1862 Congress passed the first Morrill Act which granted land to set up colleges in agricultural and mechanical arts.The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to help the states establish effective school systems by collecting information on schools and teaching.The Second Morrill Act in 1890 made the federal Office of Education responsible for administering support to land-grant colleges and universities. [15] [16]

The 20th Century

By the end of WWI in 1918, roughly two-thirds of children were enrolled in government schools, and all states had compulsory attendance laws. Oregon amended its Compulsory Education Act, making it illegal for students to attend non-government run schools, but this was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1925 in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters.

Secondary schools

The reforms of the early 20th century focused mainly on expanding secondary schools, and has been called by some the "high school movement" or second transformation of American education. It concentrated on increasing graduation rates by diversifying the academic programs to include not only traditional foundational subjects, but also vocational training. In 1917 the Smith-Hughes Act and the 1946 George-Barden Act focused federal involvement on agricultural, industrial and home economics training for high school students. [16] Educational "administrative progressives" did succeed in changing the face of public education based on the new "educational science." They changed high schools to include different tracks and electives, increased professionalism of the educational bureaucracy and instituted standardization of curricula, testing and even building design. They advocated for consolidation of schools and districts, more centralized administration, increased spending and expanded school services. In the cities they drastically reduced the number of board members and delegated decision-making to experts, including superintendents and central staff. In the countryside, smaller school districts were consolidated into large districts, drastically reducing the influence of local schools boards and lay people and increasing the power of administrators. These administrative progressives believed the federal education department should lead the states in reorganization and regulation. State Departments of Education grew to regulate and standardize their states' school systems. Whereas in 1890 there was, on average, one staff member for 100,000 students, in 1970 the ratio was one to 2,000. [18]

These reforms instituted by a new powerful education elite was very successful in educating more students through the secondary school level than anywhere else in the world. Between 1900 and 1950 the number of children aged 5 to 19 enrolled in school increased from 50 to 80% respectively. Students spent many more days in school.

Progressives

During the early part of the century, the Progressive education movement led by John Dewey sought to reform society through education. They challenged the earlier aim of public schooling to achieve cultural uniformity and to educate dutiful citizens. Instead these idealistic reformers focused on individual development and emphasized experiential learning and critical thinking, and "opposed a growing national movement that sought to separate academic education for the few and narrow vocational training for the masses, preparing workers for their vocational roles." Although some progressive education ideas were seen as too radical at the time, they survived mainly in education schools and continue to inspire educational alternatives to a "regime of standardization and mechanization" in secondary schooling. [19]

Role of federal government

In the second half of the century, the federal government continued to play an ever-increasing role in education. After the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union, in 1958 Congress passed the "first example of comprehensive Federal education legislation," the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) which "included support for loans to college students, the improvement of science, mathematics, and foreign language instruction in elementary and secondary schools, graduate fellowships, foreign language and area studies, and vocational-technical training." [16]

Segregation in public schools continued until 1954 when it was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education . During 1960s and 1970s, with the passage of laws such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which prohibited discrimination based on race, sex and disability, the Department's mission came to include that of ensuring equal access to education. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) launched a comprehensive set of programs, including the Title I program of federal aid to disadvantaged children and the Higher Education Act which authorized assistance for postsecondary education, including financial aid programs for needy college students.

In 1980 the Department of Education became a cabinet level agency. Despite the objections of critics, including President Reagan who wanted to abolish it, the federal agency's involvement in elementary and secondary programs, as well as postsecondary education continued to expand. There was also a growing sense that the quality of public education had been declining since the mid-1960s. This led to the comprehensive 1983 study "A Nation At Risk" , which recommended more rigorous standards, merit pay and other reforms in order to increase national competitiveness.

In response to the devastating findings of the report, the "School Choice" movement, led by Milton Friedman, noted free-market economist, began among parents and reformers calling for more school choice and accountability, and significantly less state involvement. By 2000 education options such as homeschooling, vouchers, tuition tax credits and charter schools had increased significantly throughout the country. These reforms have been somewhat controversial and opposed by some in the educational establishment and teachers' unions. [21]

Current education policy

In the 21st century, two major policy issues have been most prominent: school choice and academic performance . Parents have been demanding more alternatives and a more active role in choosing schools that they believe will provide better education for their children. Reform groups and federal and state government agencies have been wrestling with the issue of education standards, and whether there can or should be common standards for all educational instruction and achievement.

To administer and oversee its programs, the Department of Education today has the third largest budget of all the Cabinet-level departments, though it has the smallest staff, with 4,400 employees. [22]

• No Child Left Behind Act : In 2001 the United States Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act , (NCLB) which instituted education reform based on the philosophy that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals for schools would improve individual outcomes for public school students. The legislation required states to develop standardized tests and to give these assessments to all students at certain designated grade levels in order to receive federal funding. Each individual state was responsible for developing its own standards. The bill passed with bipartisan support and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002. [23] Many critics of No Child Left Behind have denounced its requirement of and emphasis on standardized testing, and believe it was not sufficiently funded.
• Race to the Top : On June 24, 2009, President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced a $4.35 billion competitive grant fund named the Race to the Top Fund. The competition, created by the U.S. Department of Education , was created to promote innovation and improve achievement in state and local K-12 education. The program was funded by the ED Recovery Act, a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act . States were awarded funds for achieving performance standards, implementing reforms, complying with Common Core standards , building comprehensive data systems and turning around low performing schools. The goal for this plan was to provide incentives for effective reform efforts and reward states and districts for implementing these reforms. To become eligible, states needed to satisfy a "Common Core" of achievement standards. States proposed sweeping reform objectives and then submitted grant proposals for programs they believed would achieve the objectives outlined. Proposals were measured against a scoring criteria, and grants were awarded. The Department of Education then measured states' progress towards their target objectives as the grant renewal process proceeded. Several states were unable to meet proposed targets in Race to the Top funded programs. As a result, grant allocation slowed significantly after three initial rounds. In 2012, President Obama announced a $400 million expansion of the program--the Race to the Top District competition--in which school districts, rather than state school systems, may apply for Race to the Top program grants. [24] [25] [26]
• Common Core : The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an American education initiative that outlines quantifiable benchmarks in English and mathematics at each grade level from kindergarten through high school. These benchmarks were developed by a working group assembled by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers in 2008 through 2009. Common Core standards have drawn attention since their finalization in 2009 among groups concerned about several different elements included in the reforms, including the impact of standardized testing on academic achievement . A total of 43 states have approved Common Core standards as of June 20, 2014. Alaska , Nebraska , Texas and Virginia have not adopted the standards. Indiana , Oklahoma and South Carolina adopted the Common Core standards but repealed them in 2014. Minnesota has only adopted the English-language arts requirements from the Common Core standards.
• Online learning : Online learning is a rapidly expanding type of education not only in the United States, but throughout the world. Although the first virtual classroom was an experiment that used closed circuit television and an early computer network, online education has improved alongside technology. Courses taught in a studio or college in New England can be viewed or taken by students around the world. Students in elementary or secondary schools can take online courses through their districts or virtual charter schools . Critics assert that learning online is a poor substitute for classic instruction while proponents insist that the difference in education quality is negligible at its worst and improving gradually. Regardless, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that around 5.5 million college students took at least one online class in 2012. This data only accounts for a small number of students who participate in online education, as students of all ages and from anywhere in the world can potentially take classes online. [27] [28] [29]

Major federal legislation

• 1862: First Morrill Act provided the first federal aid for higher education by donating land for setting up colleges. [30]
• 1890: Second Morrill Act gave the Office authority to establish a support system for land-grant colleges and universities.
• 1896: U.S. Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson , legalized segregation in "separate but equal" schools.
• 1917: Smith-Hughes Act extended federal aid to vocational education programs.
• 1946: Georgia-Barden Act established agricultural, industrial and home economics classes.
• 1944: GI Bill authorized assistance to veterans for postsecondary schools.
• 1954: U.S. Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education , outlaws segregation precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson .
• 1958: National Defense Education Act (NDEA) supported loans for college students, improved science, technology and foreign language support in elementary and secondary schools and provided fellowships in response to the Cold War.
• 1964: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination based on race, color or national origin in public schools.
• 1965: Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act gave federal aid to schools in poor rural and urban areas.
• 1965: The Higher Education Act authorized federal aid for poor postsecondary students.
• 1970: Standardized tests were given to public schools and the results are reported to the government and public in an effort to hold educators accountable.
• 1972: Title IX of the Education Amendments prohibited discrimination based on sex in public schools.
• 1973: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibited discrimination based on disability in public schools.
• 1980: The Department of Education was officially formed by Congress.
• 2001: No Child Left Behind Act program increased education funding and established standards-based testing reforms.
• 2010: Race to the Top program encouraged states to compete for federal grants in education.
• U.S. Department of Education
• School board elections portal
• Glossary of education terms
• Academic performance
• No Child Left Behind Act

External links

• ED.gov, U.S. Department of Education, "Policy Overview."
• Common Core State Standards Initiative
• Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
• Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
• National Education Association
• Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• National Governors Association
• National Conference of State Legislatures
• ↑ PBS.org , "School: The Story of American Education," accessed April 28, 2014
• ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
• ↑ ' The U.S. Department of Education , "Laws and Guidance," accessed June 27, 2014
• ↑ The Federal Role in Education , at Ed.gov," accessed April 10, 2014
• ↑ Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute , "A Brief History of Education in America", accessed April 10, 2014
• ↑ University of Notre Dame , "Massachusetts Education Laws of 1642 and 1647", accessed April 10, 2014
• ↑ Boston Latin School Association , "Boston Latin School History"," accessed April 11, 2014
• ↑ "The Education of Children," ca. 1700," accessed April 10, 2014
• ↑ Chesapeake.edu , "Colonial Education, Education for Boys and Girls," accessed April 18, 2014
• ↑ Early National Education ," accessed April 10, 2014
• ↑ Education Encyclopedia - State University.com , "Common School Movement - Colonial and Republican Schooling, Changes in Antebellum Era, The Rise of the Common School," accessed April 11, 2014
• ↑ Education in the Revolutionary Era, accessed on April 10, 2014
• ↑ Coulson, Andrew J., Market Education: The Unknown History , Transaction Publishers: 1999, pp. 82-83
• ↑ ' www.britannica.com , "Land-Grant College Act of 1862," accessed April 18, 2014
• ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 U.S. Dept of Education , "The Federal Role in Education," accessed April 18, 2014
• ↑ Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and, 268 u.s. 510 (1925), accessed, April 14, 2014
• ↑ Tinkering Toward Utopia, A Century of Public School Reform , by David Tyack and Larry Cuban, (Harvard University Press: 1995), p. 19
• ↑ University of Vermont , John Dewey Project, "A Brief Overview of Progressive Education," accessed April 21, 2014
• ↑ "A Nation At Risk," April 1983.
• ↑ U.S. Department of Education, "The Federal Role in Education," accessed September 30, 2014
• ↑ Josie Canales, James Frey, Cathy Walker, Sherry Freeland Walker, Suzanne Weiss and Anna West, Education Commission of the States, "No State Left Behind: The Challenges and Opportunities of ESEA 2001," accessed January 28, 2014
• ↑ Huffington Post , "Race To The Top For Districts Piques Interest Of Chicago And Los Angeles Mayors," March 3, 2012
• ↑ Ed.gov, "Race to the Top District Competition," accessed February 27, 2014
• ↑ Ed.gov, "Race to the Top Fund," accessed February 27, 2014
• ↑ Chronicle , "Exactly how many students take online courses?" accessed January 16, 2015
• ↑ SayCampusLife.com , "History of online education," accessed January 16, 2015
• ↑ U.S. Department of Education , "Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies," accessed September 12, 2014
• ↑ ourdocuments.gov , "Morrill Act (1862)," accessed April 18, 2014
• Education policy tracking
• Education policy concepts and issues
• Education policy terms and definitions

Ballotpedia features 454,414 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff or report an error . For media inquiries, contact us here . Please donate here to support our continued expansion.

Information about voting

• What's on my ballot?
• Where do I vote?
• How do I register to vote?
• How do I request a ballot?
• When do I vote?
• When are polls open?
• Who represents me?

2024 Elections

• Presidential election
• Presidential candidates
• Congressional elections
• Ballot measures
• State executive elections
• State legislative elections
• State judge elections
• Local elections
• School board elections

2025 Elections

• State executives
• State legislatures
• State judges
• Municipal officials
• School boards
• Election legislation tracking
• State trifectas
• State triplexes
• Redistricting
• Pivot counties
• State supreme court partisanship
• Polling indexes

Public Policy

• Administrative state
• Criminal justice policy
• Education policy
• Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
• Unemployment insurance
• Work requirements
• Policy in the states

Information for candidates

• Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey
• How do I run for office?
• How do I update a page?
• Election results
• Send us candidate contact info

Get Engaged

• Donate to Ballotpedia
• Report an error
• Newsletters
• Ballotpedia podcast
• Ballotpedia Boutique
• Media inquiries
• Premium research services
• 2024 Elections calendar
• 2024 Presidential election
• Biden Administration
• Recall elections
• Ballotpedia News

SITE NAVIGATION

• Ballotpedia's Sample Ballot
• 2024 Congressional elections
• 2024 State executive elections
• 2024 State legislative elections
• 2024 State judge elections
• 2024 Local elections
• 2024 Ballot measures
• Upcoming elections
• 2025 Statewide primary dates
• 2025 State executive elections
• 2025 State legislative elections
• 2025 Local elections
• 2025 Ballot measures
• Cabinet officials
• Executive orders and actions
• Key legislation
• Judicial nominations
• White House senior staff
• U.S. President
• U.S. Congress
• U.S. Supreme Court
• Federal courts
• State government
• Municipal government
• Election policy
• Running for office
• Ballotpedia's weekly podcast
• About Ballotpedia
• Editorial independence
• Job opportunities
• News and events
• Privacy policy
• Disclaimers

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects
• How to Subscribe
• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Education Policy in the United States

Introduction, classic works, textbooks and general overviews, data sources, pedagogical reform, school system–wide reforms, politics of education, early childhood education, elementary and secondary education, higher education, school choice, international perspectives, social resources, school funding and finance, family and community, race and ethnicity, social class, special education, related articles expand or collapse the "related articles" section about, about related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Education and Health
• Educational Policy and Race
• Gender and Education

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Consumer Credit and Debt
• Global Inequalities
• LGBTQ+ Spaces
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Education Policy in the United States by Lindsey Young , Justina Judy Spicer , Barbara Schneider LAST REVIEWED: 03 December 2019 LAST MODIFIED: 24 May 2018 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756384-0098

Examining educational policy through a sociological lens allows for a deeper understanding of the educational process—both of the individual and of the organization. Sociologists study the provision of education, including policies created at various levels of government, the implementation of these policies, and the outcomes for the individual and organization. Policies in education affect a broad range of the population, spanning from birth to adult learning. Educational policy is influenced by the historical context in which the policy is shaped; the social forces and consequences that extend beyond the walls of schools; and the political setting of reform. Although educational policymaking in the United States has historically been relegated to local and state entities, since the 1960s the federal role in education has been increasing, changing the conditions in which the education system functions and how it is studied. Specifically, the federal government has greatly emphasized increased accountability through testing, teacher evaluation, and school rankings. Policies in this vein have been fluid and bipartisan; recently, accountability measures increased through the No Child Left Behind Act, and continued through the Every Student Succeeds Act. While the focus of this article is on educational policy in the United States, sources that feature other nations and regions are included to allow opportunities for a comparative analysis and to provide a global context to policies worldwide.

These selected works demonstrate a foundation for understanding motivations behind educational policy and come from a diverse range of disciplines, but they by no means represent an exhaustive list. Although a vast quantity of text has been written, these pieces reflect significant contributions to the field and their influence on educational policy in the United States. John Dewey was one of the early voices to explore the role of the school as well as the learner in his book, The School and Society . The release of Equality of Educational Opportunity (commonly referred to as the “Coleman Report”) in 1966 fundamentally challenged what was understood about equality of education and how educational outcomes were studied. Twenty years later, Hallinan 1988 revisited inequality and reviewed the then-current body of research on this issue. Bourdieu 1973 and Bowles and Gintis 2011 provide frameworks for understanding the relationship between schools and society. Findings from Edmonds 1979 reinforce the importance of institutional factors for improving student performance. National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983 highlights problems with the US education system and offers recommendations for new curricular standards, instruction, and assessments. Coleman and Hoffer 1987 analyzes data from public and private high schools to understand the role of community factors and access to social capital for enhancing educational outcomes. Elmore 2004 provides a critique of accountability and high-stakes testing policies from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1973. Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Knowledge, education and cultural change: Papers in the sociology of education . Edited by Richard Brown, 71–112. Explorations in Sociology 2. London: Tavistock.

Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

In this chapter, Bourdieu extends the idea of capital to include social and cultural capital as a framework for understanding behavior. He argues that those who are richest in cultural capital are more likely to invest in their children’s education.

Find this resource:

• Google Preview»

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 2011. Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life . Chicago: Haymarket.

Originally published in 1976 (New York: Basic Books). Bowles and Gintis argue in this book that the education system in America is geared toward producing laborers for a capitalist workforce. They assert that schools function not to teach content but rather to shape the aspirations, behaviors, and values of students according to their social and economic class.

Coleman, James S., Ernest Q. Campbell, Carol J. Hobson, et al. 1966. Equality of educational opportunity . Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

The “Coleman Report” was commissioned by the US government to evaluate the equality of education across elementary and secondary schools in the United States. The analysis included more than 150,000 students and measured the equality of educational outcomes for students across different schools.

Coleman, James S., and Thomas Hoffer. 1987. Public and private high schools: The impact of communities . New York: Basic Books.

This book reports findings from a large-scale comparison of sophomores and seniors in public, Catholic, and other private schools. The authors argue that students in private schools showed higher academic performance, were less likely to drop out, and were more likely to enroll in college compared to students in public schools.

Dewey, John. 1900. The school and society . 3d ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

The text of this book comes from three lectures that Dewey delivered on the rationale behind the University Elementary School, and where he also introduced his pedagogic approach to education.

Edmonds, Ronald. 1979. Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership 37.1: 15–24.

In this article, the author argues that children in low-achieving schools should have the same opportunities for achievement in reading as children in high-achieving schools. The findings from this study reinforce the influence of institutional leadership, expectations, and atmosphere for student performance.

Elmore, Richard. 2004. School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

This book provides a critique of the accountability and high-stakes testing policies that are part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Elmore argues that successful school reform begins from “the inside out,” suggesting that change should begin with the teachers, administrators, and school staff as opposed to external mandates and policies.

Hallinan, Maureen T. 1988. Equality of educational opportunity. Annual Review of Sociology 14:249–268.

DOI: 10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001341 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This article discusses the relationship between the field of sociology of education and the persistent subject of the equality of educational opportunity.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform . Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Written at a time when there were serious questions about the competitiveness of US students compared to students in other countries, this report called for a series of reforms to the educational system. These reforms included a more rigorous curriculum, improvements to instruction and assessments, and other structural changes as a way of maintaining global economic competitiveness for the United States.

Several texts provide an overview of the research in sociology of education. Select samples of these texts are listed in this section. Hallinan 2006 includes contributions that provide a foundation of theoretical approaches and analyses of previous research in the sociology of education. Ballantine and Spade 2011 and Sadovnik 2011 include a wide range of topics and relevant research in the sociology of education. Midgley and Livermore 2009 provides a comprehensive policy view of education, focusing on the relationship between social policy and social services. Kirst and Wirt 2009 provides a framework for organizing the politics of American education. Buchmann 2011 offers a comparative perspective of educational policy in the United States and the study of international sociology of education. Finally, Schneider and Saw 2018 investigates the relationship between the individual and the social systems they operate within, such as schools.

Ballantine, Jeanne H., and Joan Z. Spade, eds. 2011. Schools and society: A sociological approach to education . 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

This fourth edition includes original work and article excerpts from leading contributors in the area of sociology of education. Ballantine and Spade include discussions of theory and methodology, as well as classical and early-21st-century issues of educational systems.

Buchmann, Claudia. 2011. Frontiers in comparative and international sociology of education: American distinctiveness and global diversity. In Frontiers in sociology of education . Edited by Maureen T. Hallinan, 35–51. Frontiers in Sociology and Social Research 1. New York: Springer.

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1576-9 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

In this chapter, Buchmann discusses the role of international sociological research and advocates for a greater integration of more comparative streams of research on issues central to the sociology of education.

Hallinan, Maureen T., ed. 2006. Handbook of the sociology of education . Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. New York: Springer.

This handbook includes several contributions that present research and analyses on a range of educational issues, including the social processes that involve schooling, the role of schools, and the impact of education on society. This book is organized based on themes such as the theoretical background of education, development and expansion of education, access to schooling, schools as organizations, educational policy, and research.

Kirst, Michael W., and Frederick M. Wirt. 2009. The political dynamics of American education . 4th ed. Richmond, CA: McCutchan.

DOI: 10.12698/cpre.2009.PoliticalDynamics.KirstBk Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This politics of education textbook creates an original conceptual framework to organize the politics of American education, focusing on school choice, the 2008 presidential election, and the politics of charter schools and No Child Left Behind.

Midgley, James, and Michelle Livermore, eds. 2009. The handbook of social policy . 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

In this handbook, Midgley and Livermore attempt to document a body of knowledge about government social policies. The areas of focus include the nature, history, and political economy of social policy; the relationship between social policy and social services; and the future implications of social policy.

Sadovnik, Alan, ed. 2011. Sociology of education: A critical reader . 2d ed. New York: Routledge.

This reader provides examples of both research and theory in the fields of sociology and education. The editor includes classic and early-21st-century scholarship that represents a diverse selection of research. Topics include international education, higher education, and inequality in education.

Schneider, Barbara, and Guan Saw, eds. 2018. Handbook of sociology of education in the 21st century . New York: Springer.

This handbook investigates the relationship between the individual and the social systems the individual interacts with and through, while also examining how social systems are shaped by their environment. Topics in this volume include families and schools, the social organization of school and learning opportunities, the demographics of social inequality, the transition into adulthood, and sociological perspectives on accountability and evaluation.

As education policy is multidisciplinary in its nature, research can be found in a variety of general and specialty journals throughout education and the social sciences. Several journals specifically focus on education policy. The American Educational Research Association sponsors the flagship education policy journal— Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis —as well as the American Educational Research Journal , the Educational Researcher , and the Review of Educational Research . The Harvard Educational Review promotes dialogue between education scholars and educators. The American Journal of Sociology is the oldest academic journal of sociology in the United States, contributing to national understanding of sociological theory and methods. The American Sociological Association (ASA) sponsors the American Sociological Review as well as Sociology of Education , which include articles on education policy, although their missions are more diverse. The Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness covers a range of topics that apply to classrooms and schools. Policy work can also be found in the Social Science Quarterly , which includes research across a broad range of social sciences, including sociology, political science, and economics. The Review of Educational Research reviews education-related articles from a variety of fields, such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Sociological Forum is a journal representing innovative sociological research, Sociological Perspectives includes research regarding social processes related to issues such as economics and politics, and the British Journal of Sociology represents mainstream sociological research.

American Educational Research Journal . 1964–.

This American Educational Research Association journal publishes six issues a year and includes theoretical and empirical studies in education. The journal is organized into two sections: social and institutional analysis—focused on political, cultural, social, economic, and organizational issues; and a section on teaching, learning, and human development—focused on the processes and outcomes of teaching, learning, and development.

American Journal of Sociology . 1895–.

This journal is attached to the University of Chicago’s sociology department, and it is published bimonthly by the University of Chicago Press. This journal is the oldest academic journal of sociology in the United States, contributing to a national understanding of the theory, methods, practice, and history of sociology.

American Sociological Review . 1936–.

The flagship journal of the ASA, this bimonthly publication includes research in sociology that contributes to the understanding of fundamental social processes, new theoretical developments, and important methodological innovations.

British Journal of Sociology . 1950–.

The British Journal of Sociology , representing the mainstream of sociological thinking and research, has been considered to be among “the highest-status journals.”

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis . 1979–.

This multidisciplinary journal largely focuses on research and scholarly work related to policy. Published four times a year, its target audience is those engaged in educational policy analysis, evaluation, and decision making.

Educational Researcher . 2009–.

This journal, published nine times a year, includes scholarly articles from a broad range of areas of education research. This journal is published in association with the American Educational Research Association.

Harvard Educational Review . 1930–.

This journal, published by the Harvard Graduate School of Education, is a prestigious journal that is distributed to policymakers, teachers, researchers, and administrators. Published quarterly, this journal aims to provide a forum for debate about education’s major issues.

Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness . 2009–.

The flagship publication of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, this journal is published annually and focuses on classrooms and schools. Publications within this journal focus on reading, mathematics education, and science education, cognitive functions, and social processes.

Review of Educational Research . 1931–.

A quarterly journal that publishes critical reviews of education-related research literature, not original empirical research. Reviews of research submitted to this journal include work from disciplines such as psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, and others.

Social Science Quarterly . 1919–.

A quarterly journal that publishes research on a broad range of topics in the social sciences. The official journal of the Southwestern Social Science Association and includes a special annual issue on important—and sometimes controversial—topics.

Sociological Forum . 1986–.

Sociological Forum is the flagship journal of the Eastern Sociological Society. This quarterly publication covers substantive issues of fundamental importance to the study of society, emphasizing innovative direction in sociological research.

Sociological Perspectives . 1957–.

Sociological Perspectives is the official publication of the Pacific Sociological Association. This quarterly publication covers social processes related to economic, political, anthropological, and historical issues.

Sociology of Education . 2004–.

A quarterly journal of the ASA that publishes works largely focused on the relationships among individuals and social institutions, including schools and other educational institutions. The journal also includes international work as well as advances in methodology for studying social networks.

Researchers in the field of education have access to a variety of cross-sectional and longitudinal data sets that include several different sampling designs and methods of data collection. This is not a complete list, but these sources include data on educational characteristics of individuals, student achievement, educational and occupational attainment, demographic trends, and other topics. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal agency responsible for collecting and analyzing these data in the United States. From the NCES website, several national longitudinal studies (such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress) can be accessed and publicly available data can be downloaded. Two additional surveys listed below study American students’ transition into adulthood: the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health , which investigates the experiences related to adolescent development, and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System , which collects data on enrollment in postsecondary institutions. Data collected by the United States Census Bureau and the American Community Survey can be used to examine demographic information nationally, as it relates to educational and occupational attainment, and can also be linked to the data collected by NCES. The UNESCO Institute for Statistics obtains data on education trends internationally. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study is an international data set, which includes the United States, that collects information on math and science achievement. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publishes data that compares the academic achievement of its member countries (most notably, the Programme for International Student Assessment). Finally, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study collects information on reading achievement across several participating countries. It should also be noted that many states in the United States are developing their own databases of information that are not listed below but can be located through the Department of Education of individual states.

American Community Survey .

The US Census Bureau collects data more frequently with the American Community Survey that is administered to a sample of the population every year. Data collected include a range of information, such as education and occupation.

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System .

This data set is comprised of survey data collected annually in the United States by the NCES and includes data, such as student enrollment and expenditures, from every college, university, and technical and vocational institution that participates in the federal student financial aid programs.

National Center for Education Statistics .

The NCES is the primary federal agency that collects and analyzes data related to US education. Several data sources are available through NCES that cover the spectrum of education from birth to adulthood, including students, teachers, and families. Many of the studies employ nationally representative longitudinal samples.

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health .

This study follows a panel of adolescents in the United States as they transition from adolescence to adulthood. It includes four waves of data collection from 1994 to 2008 and contains data related to the experiences of adolescents and young adults.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) .

The OECD, established in 1961, publishes reports and promotes policies for its thirty-five member countries and additional emerging economies. OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment compares the test performance of fifteen-year-old students in participating countries and provides recommendations for scholastic improvement.

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study .

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study began in 2001 and reports every five years, focusing on the reading achievement of fourth-grade students.

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study .

This international study was first conducted in 1995 and reports every four years on the mathematics and science achievement of fourth- and eighth-grade students.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics .

The UNESCO Institute for Statistics is the primary source for cross-nationally comparable statistics on several topics, including education, science and technology, culture, and communication. Data from more than two hundred countries and territories are included.

United States Census Bureau .

Census data are collected every ten years in the United States, with the most recent collection occurring in 2010. The census collects demographic information from all households in the United States, including a range of data from educational attainment and household income.

The works listed below explore various historical dimensions of education, but they largely focus on the development of education in the United States. Rury 2013 begins at the time of the common school era in the United States and analyzes this policy history through the No Child Left Behind era. A four-part documentary, Mondale and Patton 2004 chronicles the history of education in the United States with contributions from several scholars in the field. Ravitch 2000 and Ravitch 2011 offer contrasting analyses of educational policies in the United States. Vinovskis 2009 focuses on the last thirty years in education policy, allowing a more detailed analysis of history leading up to the early-21st-century policies and criticisms of education in the United States. Providing a broader view, Reese 2005 traces educational reforms from the 19th century through the 21st century. Cremin 1990 discusses the history of education and how the United States uses educational policy as a vehicle for social change. Hess 2010 describes the features of the American education system that have remained constant since its conception. Lastly, Boli, et al. 1985 explores the rise and spread of mass education throughout the globe.

Boli, John, Francisco O. Ramirez, and John W. Meyer. 1985. Explaining the origins and expansion of mass education. Comparative Education Review 29.2: 145–170.

DOI: 10.1086/446504 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

In the first part of this article, the authors discuss explanations of the creation and rise of mass education. The second part analyzes the general themes of mass education, and, based on these analyses, the third part presents the hypotheses that the expansion of mass education in both developed and developing countries is characterized by traditional social organization, social inequality, and lack of autonomy.

Cremin, Lawrence A. 1990. Popular education and its discontents . New York: Harper & Row.

Organized into three essays—“Popularization,” “Multitudinousness,” and “Politicization”—Cremin explores achievements and problems of educational policy. This book begins with a discussion of rising dissatisfaction during the 1800s and continues through educational reforms of the post–World War II years, concluding with an examination of how US citizens tend to remedy certain social issues indirectly through education policy.

Hess, Fredrick M. 2010. The same thing over and over: How school reformers get stuck in yesterday’s ideas . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

In this book, the director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) provides an overview of major school reform debates, highlighting the features of the American education system that have remained constant over time. Hess argues for a change in the structure of the current system’s taken-for-granted structure to meet the needs of the 21st century.

Mondale, Sarah, dir. and prod., and Sarah Patton, prod. 2004. School: The story of American public education . DVD. Princeton, NJ: Films for the Humanities & Sciences.

This four-part documentary originally aired on PBS in 2001 follows the development of US public education beginning in the late 1770s up to the 21st century. It details the romanticism of early public education proponents and examines the challenges that have influenced educational reform over time. See companion website .

Ravitch, Diane. 2000. Left back: A century of failed school reforms . New York: Simon & Schuster.

Educational historian Diane Ravitch explores commonly held myths about how the educational system in the United States developed. Ravitch argues for a more liberal education and that progressive education has undermined not only the intellectual development of students, but also the democratic principles of American society.

Ravitch, Diane. 2011. The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education . New York: Basic Books.

In this revised and expanded edition of the book first published in 2010, Ravitch reveals the radical change of heart she experienced as she examines her career and contributions in education reform through previously published works. This work draws on Ravitch’s forty years of experience in education.

Reese, William. 2005. America’s public schools: From the common school to “No Child Left Behind.” Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

William J. Reese, professor of educational policy studies, examines the practices and theories that have impacted and transformed US public schools from the 19th century onward. This book is framed as a means to observe the ways education reforms society and explores reform within schools, highlighting pedagogical, race, and academic standard reforms.

Rury, John L. 2013. Education and social change: Themes in the history of American schooling . 4th ed. New York: Routledge.

This book provides a brief and interpretive history of schooling, focusing on the relationship between education and social change. Rury discusses the influence of important historical movements, such as industrialization, urbanization, and immigration. The book also explores how schools have contributed to the history of social change.

Vinovskis, Maris A. 2009. From A Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind: National education goals and the creation of federal education policy . New York: Teachers College Press.

Vinovskis discusses late-20th- and early-21st-century policies beginning with the National Education Goals, America 2000, Goals 2000, and finally No Child Left Behind. He also highlights key policy debates and addresses the practical considerations of policy implementation and evaluation.

Policy and Practice

As educational reforms are developed and implemented, they do not occur in a vacuum. Policies are shaped from their original forms to schools and classrooms in which current reforms and policies already exist. The works below discuss policymaking, governance as it relates to education reform, and changes in education policy over time, and they provide recommendations for collaborative partnerships between policymakers and educators. Cooper, et al. 2004 documents the process of policymaking, providing a framework for policy development. Manna and McGuinn 2013 analyzes governance structures and provides recommendations for improving student educational outcomes. Penuel and Gallagher 2017 contributes suggestions for policymakers as they work to collaborate with educators. Finally, Mitchell, et al. 2018 documents changes in education policy from the mid-20th century to today.

Cooper, Bruce S., Lance D. Fusarelli, and E. Vance Randall. 2004. Better policies, better schools : Theories and applications . Boston: Pearson.

This book provides a general overview of the theories of policymaking, the policymaking process, and examples of how the theories apply to school improvement policies. Key components include discussion of policy definition, agenda setting, policy formulation, and implementation.

Manna, Paul, and Patrick McGuinn, eds. 2013. Education governance for the twenty-first century: Overcoming the structural barriers to school reform . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

This book, containing contributions from education scholars, analysts, and practitioners, provides analysis of education governance structures, and suggests how governing structures may be changed to improve educational outcomes for students.

Mitchell, Douglas E., Dorothy Shipps, and Robert L. Crowson, eds. 2018. Shaping education policy: Power and process . 2d ed. New York: Routledge.

This book is sponsored by the Politics of Education Association. Chapters within this book examine changes in education policy from 1950 to today, and they cover topics that have influenced education, such as the civil rights movement, the accountability movement, family choice, and globalization.

Penuel, William R., and Daniel Gallagher. 2017. Creating research-practice partnerships in education . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

This book aims to serve as a resource for researchers and educators to use as they pursue working relationships with one another. The authors describe the purposes of such partnerships, strategies for problem-solving conflicts, and tools for collaboration.

Cuban 1993 and Lortie 2002 provide a portrait of the teacher profession, including the various demands placed on teachers by reforms. Coburn 2001 examines the relationship between policy and practice through a model of sense-making theory. Lipsky 2010 explores the role of teachers as “street-level bureaucrats” who face multiple demands and ambiguous goals in the classroom, possibly influencing the implementation of policy.

Coburn, Cynthia E. 2001. Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23.2: 145–170.

DOI: 10.3102/01623737023002145 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Using an in-depth case study, Coburn examines the processes of teachers as they construct their understanding of a new reading policy and the role of collective sense making in this process. Sense making, the act of simultaneously shaping and reacting to policy reforms, suggests that teachers interpret, adapt, and change policies as they put them into practice.

Cuban, Larry. 1993. How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890–1990 . 2d ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

In this updated text, Larry Cuban, professor of education at Stanford University, furthers his previous research into the history of teaching practice in the United States, highlighting teaching practices in segments of ten to twenty years and concluding his volume by offering recommendations for policymakers.

Lipsky, Michael. 2010. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services . Updated ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

In this expanded edition of his text originally published in 1980, Lipsky argues that policy is best understood through the daily encounters of those closest to the ground—teachers, in the educational context. He argues that these “street-level bureaucrats” carry out policies by establishing routines and devices to cope with the uncertainties and increasing pressures of their jobs.

Lortie, Dan C. 2002. Schoolteacher: A sociological study . 2d ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

This book discusses how teachers manage mandated reforms in their classrooms, with a focus on how teachers’ individual practices may influence policy implementation. Lortie’s in-depth study examines the behaviors of teachers and the various ways in which they respond to educational reforms.

Weiss 1995 provides a framework for understanding the relationship among teachers, administrators, and reforms. Tyack and Cuban 1995 discusses the relationship between schools and reforms, drawing on a century of changes in education in the United States. Additional resources on school system–wide reforms include Borman, et al. 1996 ; Sadovnik, et al. 2007 ; Hubbard, et al. 2006 ; Downey, et al. 2008 ; Zavadsky 2009 ; Chenoweth 2009 ; Smerdon and Borman 2009 ; O’Day, et al. 2011 ; Grant 2011 ; and Cuban 2010 .

Borman, Kathryn, Peter Cookson Jr., Alan Sadovnik, and Joan Spade, eds. 1996. Implementing educational reform: Sociological perspectives on educational policy . Social and Policy Issues in Education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Using a sociological perspective, the contributors describe and analyze the Goals 2000 legislation, intended to improve equality and increase achievement in the US school system. The book summarizes the standards and assessments; expectations for schools, parents, students, and community members; instructional support and professional development; and implications of this reform.

Chenoweth, Karin. 2009. How it’s being done: Urgent lessons from unexpected schools . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Building on earlier work, Chenoweth provides educators information on how some schools with high-poverty and high-minority populations have improved student outcomes and closed achievement gaps. Analyzing data from eight schools, the author argues that teachers and schools can implement policies that support effective instruction and reduce ineffective practices.

Cuban, Larry. 2010. As good as it gets: What school reform brought to Austin . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

Cuban explores whether school policies and practices can equalize student achievement and if schools can overcome differences in achievement associated with race and the socioeconomic status of students. Analyzing data from Austin, Texas, Cuban argues that despite overall improvement in the district, schools with high-poverty and high-minority student populations continued to struggle while predominantly affluent schools improve.

Downey, Douglas, Paul von Hippel, and Melanie Hughes. 2008. Are “failing” schools really failing? Using seasonal comparison to evaluate school effectiveness. Sociology of Education 81.3: 242–270.

DOI: 10.1177/003804070808100302 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This study evaluates whether impact-based evaluation methods alter the identification of failing schools using the data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of 1998–1999. The authors argue that for schools that are labeled as “failing” in terms of achievement levels, less than half are actually failing with respect to learning or impact.

Grant, Gerald. 2011. Hope and despair in the American city: Why there are no bad schools in Raleigh . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

This book examines two US cities—Raleigh, North Carolina, and Syracuse, New York—to understand how educational reforms and inequalities have evolved over the last few decades. Grant demonstrates that these two reform contexts offer a window into the challenges and the potential opportunities faced by urban districts that confront growing racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps.

Hubbard, Lea, Hugh Mehan, and Mary Kay Stein. 2006. Reform as learning: School reform, organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego . New York: Routledge.

The authors use four years of ethnographic data from San Diego to understand how teachers, administrators, and district staff were influenced by a systematic school reform initiative. This study uses a sociological perspective to examine the challenges to reform implementation and provides insights into why this reform failed to achieve its purposes.

O’Day, Jennifer, Catherine Bitter, and Louis Gomez, eds. 2011. Education reform in New York City: Ambitious change in the nation’s most complex school system . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

This edited volume provides analyses of several different reforms in the largest school district in the United States—New York City. The analyses of reforms include those targeting governance, community engagement, finance, accountability, and instruction. The contributors describe the scope of educational reform while highlighting interrelated factors, challenges in implementation, and how these reforms target improved outcomes for all students.

Sadovnik, Alan, Jennifer O’Day, George Bohrnstedt, and Kathryn Borman, eds. 2007. No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy . New York: Routledge.

Using a sociological lens, and similar to Borman, et al. 1996 on Goals 2000, this book analyzes the effects of No Child Left Behind on children, teachers, parents, and schools. The contributors examine the implications of this policy for schools and subgroups of students, and they explore the possibilities for decreasing achievement gaps in education.

Smerdon, Becky, and Kathryn Borman. 2009. Saving America’s high schools . Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

The authors examine multiple reforms across several cities to look at how US high schools can be improved. Smerdon and Borman outline steps teachers and administrators, faced with more diverse student populations and increased standards, can do to improve schools, including the use of formative and summative student assessments and the increase of administrator support for good teachers.

Tyack, David, and Larry Cuban. 1995. Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

This book details the history of public school reform in the United States and posits that reforms are never implemented as they were originally envisioned. Tyack and Cuban also discuss how teachers and reforms act upon each other as reforms become assimilated into the school environment.

Weiss, Carol H. 1995. The four “I’s” of school reform: How interests, ideology, information, and institution affect teachers and principals. Harvard Educational Review 65.4: 571–592.

DOI: 10.17763/haer.65.4.05530845t676w50h Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Weiss examines how teachers and principals respond to a school reform with a case study focused on shared decision making. Using the “4-I” analysis, the author explains how interests, ideology, information, and the institution shape actors’ responses to and implementation of school reform.

Zavadsky, Heather. 2009. Bringing school reform to scale: Five award-winning urban districts . Educational Innovations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

This book provides a detailed analysis of five high-performing urban districts’ efforts to improve teaching and learning, align district goals with instructional practices, and narrow gaps in student achievement. Zavadsky explores the divergent approaches these districts took and argues that diverse perspectives can contribute to understanding how reforms influence improved outcomes.

Education in the United States is a shared process among all citizens, influencing their own socialization and learning as well as schooling experiences of their family, community, and nation. Because education is an integral part of all individuals’ development, educational attainment, occupational outcome, and future economic status—educational policy is subject to significant political action. Hess 1999 and Payne 2008 explore the politics surrounding urban school reform. Berliner and Biddle 1996 discusses the politics of reform and the role media plays in perpetuating misguided information about the successes and failures of education reform. Apple 2006 takes a closer look at the evolving conservative shift in education. Feigenbaum, et al. 1999 comparatively analyzes data from three countries to understand the influence of privatization in education on the state and economy. Henig 2013 documents the increased involvement of the US federal government in local education. Maryl 2016 examines how political structures have shaped religious education in the United States and Australia.

Apple, Michael. 2006. Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality . 2d ed. New York: Routledge.

The author examines the early-21st-century conservative shift in US education with reforms such as voucher policies, charter schools, and standardized testing. Apple argues that a coalition of strange bedfellows has pushed for these policies and discusses how educators and policymakers can respond by creating a more democratic school system.

Berliner, David, and Bruce Biddle. 1996. The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Berliner and Biddle use comprehensive evidence from ACT scores, educational reports, and achievement results to dispute the commonly held myth that American schools are failing. The authors demonstrate how educational data and information have been misunderstood and misused, arguing that many of the problems students and schools face are based on societal and economic conditions.

Feigenbaum, Harvey, Jeffrey R. Henig, and Chris Hamnett. 1999. Shrinking the state: The political underpinnings of privatization . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

This book describes how privatization in education across many countries has reshaped the balance between the state and the market. Utilizing a comparative political analysis in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, the authors argue that these policies benefit some students and adversely affect others.

Henig, Jeffery R. 2013. The end of exceptionalism in American education . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

This book discusses the transfer of American education system decision-making power from the level of local and state school board control to that of higher levels of government.

Hess, Frederick. 1999. Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

In this book, Hess argues that many of the problems in urban education are the result of fragmented reform—or reforms that continually cycle through school systems, often with different incentives for various stakeholders. To combat this policy churn, Hess recommends institutional changes that allow schools to develop expertise in specific instructional approaches.

Maryl, Damon. 2016. Secular conversion: Political institutions and religious education in the United States and Australia, 1800–2000 . New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316217368 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

In this book, Maryl investigates how the institutional structure of the state shapes secularization. Maryl analyzes the United States and Australia to explain how political structures have shaped religious education, specifically through their administrative structures, electoral systems, and legal procedures.

Payne, Charles. 2008. So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Payne argues that the majority of policy discussions are disconnected from what occurs in most urban neighborhoods and that neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties have improved educational reform. Both of these parties exhaust their resources pursuing educational reforms that are not practical for urban districts. This book includes an examination of successes and failures of urban school reforms.

• Institutions

School organization varies widely across settings and institutions. The institution can play an important role in the educational experiences and outcomes of students. The works included here offer a broad insight into the predominant educational institutions (for a discussion of private schools and homeschooling, see School Choice ). Bidwell 1965 provides a conceptual foundation for analyzing schools as a unique type of formal organization that influences the education process. In Ramirez and Boli 1987 , the authors provide an exploration of the construction of mass schooling in Europe and worldwide. Baker and LeTedre 2005 discusses the similarities and differences between schooling in the United States and in other countries. Bryk and Schneider 2002 looks within the schools and articulates the role of trust relationships in school institutions. Baker 2014 argues that the US education system is a primary institution that greatly influences the economy, politics, religion, and other aspects of society. See also Bryk, et al. 2010 and Bulkley, et al. 2010 .

Baker, David. 2014. The schooled society: The educational transformation of global culture . Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.

In this book, Baker argues that education is a primary institution that has transformed, influenced, and defined society. Baker argues the effects of school on aspects of society, such as the economy, politics, and religion.

Baker, David, and Gerald K. LeTedre. 2005. National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling . Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences.

This book uses US schools as a reference point for providing a description of school as a global institution. Drawing on a four-year investigation in forty-seven countries, Baker and LeTedre show the implications of current trends in student achievement, school curriculum, and teaching practice.

Bidwell, Charles E. 1965. The school as a formal organization. In Handbook of organizations . Edited by James G. March, 972–1022. Rand McNally Sociology Series. Chicago: Rand McNally.

In this essay, Bidwell argues that teaching practice is resistant to new organizational routines, largely because teaching is idiosyncratic and highly autonomous. Although most schools have a set curriculum and other formal structures, Bidwell argues that schools are more likely to have relatively weak organizational ties between teachers and classrooms.

Bryk, Anthony S., and Barbara Schneider. 2002. Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement . Rose Series in Sociology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bryk and Schneider examine the role of relational trust in schools using quantitative and qualitative longitudinal data. They argue that the extent of trust and effective social relationships among teachers, principals, and parents are an important influence on the dynamics of school improvement.

Bryk, Anthony S., Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth, Stuart Luppescu, and John Q. Easton. 2010. Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Analyzing seven years of comprehensive data from elementary schools in the Chicago Public Schools, the authors identify effective practices and conditions necessary for school improvement. These factors include school leadership, professional capacity of faculty and staff, and a student-centered learning climate.

Bulkley, Katrina E., Jeffrey R. Henig, and Henry M. Levin. 2010. Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

The authors examine the utilization of a “portfolio management model” in school district reform, wherein a central office oversees disparate organizational and curricular structures within a district, such as traditional schools and charter schools. The authors discuss the strengths and limitations of this type of reform.

Ramirez, Francisco O., and John Boli. 1987. The political construction of mass schooling: European origins and worldwide institutionalization. Sociology of Education 60.1: 2–17.

DOI: 10.2307/2112615 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This article explores the origins of large-scale educational systems in Europe and the subsequent institutionalization of mass education around the world. Ramirez and Boli argue that the political, economic, and cultural development of Europe in the 19th century led to a highly institutionalized society and educative process.

Historically, education in the United States has focused on primary and secondary education. Since the 1970s, however, there has been an increased focus on the role of early childhood education (prior to the age of seven) for student success. Early childhood policies are often targeted as a means to improve educational equality. Magnuson and Waldfogel 2005 explores the gaps in school readiness among children of different racial and ethnic backgrounds in the United States. Vinovskis 2005 traces the history of early childhood programs in the United States, from the first program to early-21st-century policy, and discusses the implications of early childhood policies. Barnett 1995 examines several early childhood care and educational programs—highlighting their positive influence on child outcomes and future policy considerations. Hart and Risley 2003 offers data on the development of a child’s vocabulary and the inequality of development in children from different family backgrounds.

Barnett, W. Steven. 1995. Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children 5.3: 25–50.

DOI: 10.2307/1602366 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This article reviews thirty-six studies that examine the effects of model projects and public programs for children from low-income families. The findings suggest that early childhood programs can provide considerable short-term benefits in addition to long-term advantages, concluding with policy recommendations.

Hart, Betty, and Todd R. Risley. 2003. The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator 27.1: 4–9.

This longitudinal study of forty-two families found different rates of vocabulary development for children of varying socioeconomic backgrounds. By age three, children from advantaged families have heard, on average, thirty million more words than children from disadvantaged families. Exposure to high-quality language was predictive of children’s vocabulary and reading performance in elementary school.

Magnuson, Katherine A., and Jane Waldfogel. 2005. Early childhood care and education: Effects on ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children 15.1: 169–196.

DOI: 10.1353/foc.2005.0005 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This article examines differences among the experiences of children of various racial and ethnic backgrounds regarding early childhood care and education. Magnuson and Waldfogel argue that incremental changes in enrollment or quality of care and education will do little to narrow school readiness gaps. However, they argue that policies should focus on improving the experiences of black, Hispanic, racial and ethnic heritage, and low-income children.

Vinovskis, Maris A. 2005. The birth of head start: Preschool education policies in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226856735.001.0001 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This book provides a historical perspective of early childhood policies, beginning with Project Head Start in 1964. Since the creation of this policy, a number of programs have appeared that support the development of young children. Vinovskis discusses the political implications and future of this policy area.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed in 1965, a part of the “War on Poverty,” creating a national formal organization for primary and secondary schools in the United States. The early-21st-century reauthorization of the law is called the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 , which was the eighth such reauthorization. Its ninth revision was the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 , maintaining the high accountability standards of No Child Left Behind while offering more control to states. Although primary and secondary school is universally offered in the United States, this is not necessarily the case internationally; Heyneman and Loxley 1983 and Alexander 2001 describe and examine the importance of primary education in the United States and internationally. Lucas 1999 explores how high schools can produce inequality of education through differential access to curriculum and student tracking. Frank, et al. 2008 studies social contexts of high school students using their math course–taking behavior and how student’s “local positions,” or the clusters of students within the high school, influence social norms and academic effort. Crosnoe 2011 examines how adolescents navigate the complex social dynamics of American high schools. See also Oakes 2005 , Oakes and Saunders 2008 , and Rumberger 2011 .

Alexander, Robin J. 2001. Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education . Malden, MA: Blackwell.

This book provides a comparison of primary and secondary elementary schooling in England, France, India, Russia, and the United States. Alexander explores how the teacher, school values and organization, local pressures, national policy, and political tension shape teaching and learning.

Crosnoe, Robert. 2011. Fitting in, standing out: Navigating the social challenges of high school to get an education . New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511793264 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Crosnoe explores the complex environment of American high schools from a sociological perspective. Drawing on national statistics, interviews, and observations within a single school, this book examines how teenagers navigate the social dynamics of high school while transitioning into adulthood.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 889–10, 79 Stat. 27 (1965).

This legislation, signed in 1965 as a foundation of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” provided funding for primary and secondary education in an attempt to create equal access to quality education, promoting high standards for academic achievement and accountability. This act has been renewed, with modifications, every five years after its adoption, under various names such as the No Child Left Behind Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114–95, 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).

The Every Student Succeeds Act replaced the No Child Left Behind Act by shifting public education from national to local and state control. Accountability measures resulting from this act expanded from test scores to include needs assessments for schools and learning communities, plans for federal funding, program implementation, and monitoring protocols.

Frank, Kenneth A., Chandra Muller, Kathryn S. Schiller, et al. 2008. The social dynamics of mathematics coursetaking in high school. American Journal of Sociology 113.6: 1645–1696.

DOI: 10.1086/587153 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Using data from the Adolescent Health and Academic Achievement Study, Frank and his colleagues examine how peers within a similar social network contribute to differences in academic effort. The authors argue that adolescents’ social contexts are defined, in part, by clusters of students, and females are highly responsive to the norms of these student clusters.

Heyneman, Stephen P., and William A. Loxley. 1983. The effect of primary-school quality on academic achievement across twenty-nine high- and low-income countries. American Journal of Sociology 88.6: 1162–1194.

DOI: 10.1086/227799 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Heyneman and Loxley challenge the belief that student and family background characteristics are the biggest contributors to student achievement. Using student achievement data from Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, the authors assert that school and teacher quality are more salient, particularly for students in low-income countries.

Lucas, Samuel Roundfield. 1999. Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools . Sociology of Education Series. New York: Teachers College Press.

In this book, Lucas explores formal academic tracking in US high schools. Using nationally representative data, he examines the curriculum structure, the location of students within this structure, and the consequences of tracking for an individual’s postsecondary and career path.

Mittleman, Joel, and Jennifer L. Jennings. 2018. Accountability, achievement, and inequality in American public schools: A review of the literature. In Handbook of the sociology of education in the 21st century . Edited by Barbara Schneider and Guan Saw, 510–529. New York: Springer.

In this chapter, Mittleman and Jennings review accountability systems in US schools by reviewing the social science literature. The authors document the history of accountability in schools and review the impacts of the systems in terms of instruction, student outcomes, and policy feedback.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 , Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

This legislation is a standards-based education reform that significantly increased the accountability of schools. These federal statutes included guidelines for states to create rigorous curriculum standards and benchmarks for their students, in addition to standardized ways of measuring student achievement.

Oakes, Jeannie. 2005. Keeping track: How schools structure inequality . 2d ed. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.

Oakes examines the role schools play in reproducing inequalities through the sorting of students into different academic tracks. This second edition includes an updated discussion of the “tracking wars” in schools and provides an examination of the assumptions and implications of continued tracking practices in secondary schools.

Oakes, Jeannie, and Marisa Saunders. 2008. Beyond tracking: Multiple pathways to college, career, and civic participation . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Continuing the discussion of tracking in high school, Oakes and coauthor Saunders offer an innovative alternative to tracking—a multiple pathways approach. This approach is built on the notion that American high schools should provide both academic and real-world foundations for all students. The four main components of the multiple pathways system include college-preparatory core, professional/technical core, field-based learning and realistic workplace simulations, and additional support services.

Rumberger, Russell W. 2011. Dropping out: Why students drop out of high school and what can be done about it . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

DOI: 10.4159/harvard.9780674063167 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This book asks the straightforward yet critical questions: Who drops out? Why? And what happens after they drop out? Vulnerable students can often be targeted early in their school careers and Rumberger argues for interventions that can keep students in school and away from a potential future of poverty, crime, and increased health problems.

Literature on higher education includes the structure and policies of varying higher education institutions as well as examines the influence of higher education on outcomes later in life. MacLeod 2009 provides an ethnographic study of how teenagers from a housing project in the United States develop and attain their future aspirations. Schneider and Stevenson 1999 studies the educational and occupational ambitions of adolescents and argues that many lack support in planning and reaching their desired goals. Armstrong and Hamilton 2015 investigates how young women’s college experiences lead to their academic outcomes, social lives, and labor-market opportunities. Karabel 2005 explores how an administrative regime evolved in three leading organizations (e.g., Harvard, Princeton, and Yale) in one field. Espenshade and Radford 2009 explores persistent inequality in education at colleges and universities in the United States. Arum and Roksa 2011 investigates what students are learning in college and argues that a sizable number of students are not learning essential knowledge and skills. Arum, et al. 2018 examines the college experiences of students from different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. Finally, Rosenbaum 2001 describes the relationships between employers and high school, and preparing students for careers. See also Bowen, et al. 2009 and Attewell and Lavin 2007 .

Armstrong, Elizabeth, and Laura Hamilton. 2015. Paying for the party: How college maintains inequality . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

The authors investigate how young women’s college experience lead to their academics, social lives, and labor-market participation. This book provides a longitudinal qualitative study that includes extensive ethnographic observation and interviews. The authors also question current policymakers on whether our higher education provides a path to social mobility for all who wish for such mobility.

Arum, Richard, and Josipa Roksa. 2011. Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Arum and Roksa investigate students’ learning in college. Using data from more than twenty-three hundred undergraduates at twenty-four institutions, the authors found differences in academic learning, time on studies, and social activities among the students at different types of universities.

Arum, Richard, Josipa Roksa, Jacqueline Cruz, and Blake Silver. 2018. Student experiences in college. In Handbook of sociology of education in the 21st century . Edited by Barbara Schneider and Guan Saw, 421–441. New York: Springer.

In this book chapter, Arum and colleagues argue for a broader view of college student academic and social experiences—one couched in historical and institutional contexts. These authors focus on the various college experiences of students from different demographic backgrounds, such as socioeconomic and racial groups.

Attewell, Paul, and David E. Lavin. 2007. Passing the torch: Does higher education for the disadvantaged pay off across the generations? Rose Series in Sociology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Examining evidence from multiple cohorts of women who enrolled at the City University of New York after the start of the university’s “open admissions” policy, Attewell and Lavin examine the idea that education can support upward social mobility. Following these women over thirty years, this study analyzes the impact of higher educational attainment on the achievement of the women’s children.

Bowen, William, Matthew Chingos, and Michael McPherson. 2009. Crossing the finish line: Completing college at America’s public universities . Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

This book attempts to understand the college dropout crisis in the United States. Using data from twenty-one state universities and four statewide higher education systems, the authors identify challenges that low-income and minority students face regarding the costs of college, lower graduation rates, and longer time-to-degree, and they describe several reforms that policymakers could adopt to improve these outcomes.

Espenshade, Thomas J., and Alexandria Walton Radford. 2009. No longer separate, not yet equal: Race and class in elite college admission and campus life . Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

This book raises the research question: are US elite colleges admitting and successfully educating a diverse student body? Using data from more than nine thousand students who applied to selective institutions, the authors investigate admission advantages for minorities as well as race- and class-related gaps in academic achievements, tuition costs, and satisfaction with college experiences.

Karabel, Jerome. 2005. The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

The author studies the history of college admissions at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton from 1900 to 2005 and provides both a view of institutional power and of the evolution of gatekeeping tools across organizations. This book also reveals the changing dynamics of power and privilege in America over the past century.

MacLeod, Jay. 2009. Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood . 3d ed. Boulder, CO: Westview.

This urban ethnography follows a group of low-income teenagers through school and into adulthood, exploring how social inequality is reproduced from one generation to the next. MacLeod uses this study to argue how inequality is created, sustained, and legitimized in the United States.

Rosenbaum, James E. 2001. Beyond college for all: Career paths for the forgotten half . Rose Series in Sociology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

This book focuses on this crisis in the American labor market. Rosenbaum describes findings from survey and interview data and argues that alignment in the perception and actions between students, educators, and employers is absent. In contrast to countries such as Germany and Japan, misinformation, student disengagement, and lack of trust between schools and employers poses challenges to young adults in the United States.

Schneider, Barbara, and David Stevenson. 1999. The ambitious generation: America’s teenagers, motivated but directionless . New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.

Schneider and Stevenson argue that American teenagers have ambitious educational and occupational expectations, yet often lack the ability to achieve their goals. The study includes seven thousand teenagers and offers specific guidance based on their findings for how parents and teachers can better support adolescents in their efforts to achieve their ambitions.

School choice policy is largely built on the economic theory of choice and free markets, where individuals choose their educational institution. A classic essay, Friedman 2002 proposes choice theory in education and discusses a free market system for schools. Hirschman 1970 further explores choice theory and the responses individuals have to their choices. Chubb and Moe 1990 argues for increased school choice and competition as a means to increase student achievement. McEwan and Carnoy 2000 evaluates the use of voucher systems in Chile. Bryk, et al. 1993 analyzes the effect of attending Catholic schools compared to public schools. Carnoy, et al. 2005 uses student gain scores to more accurately compare charter and public school effectiveness. Bettinger 2005 evaluates the effects of charter schools, both on within-school student achievement and on the achievement of neighboring public schools. Cooper and Sureau 2007 discusses the politics of homeschooling in the United States, an increasingly popular educational choice for families. Lubienski and Lubienski 2013 uses demographic information to claim public schools as more effective than private schools for creating gains in student achievement. See also Lubienski and Weitzel 2010 and Fabricant and Fine 2012 .

Bettinger, Eric P. 2005. The effect of charter schools on charter students and public schools. Economics of Education Review 24.2: 133–147.

DOI: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.04.009 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This article evaluates the changes in test scores of students attending charter schools as well as the effects of charter schools on students at neighboring public schools. Bettinger argues that there were no significant effects on test scores for neighboring public schools when charters were introduced.

Bryk, Anthony, Valerie Lee, and Peter Holland. 1993. Catholic schools and the common good . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

This book examines US Catholic high schools to understand if students are better educated there or in public schools. The authors argue that Catholic schools have a positive effect on student achievement, particularly in reducing disparities between disadvantaged students and their privileged counterparts. They cite Catholic schools’ moral imperative as a key factor in driving educational quality.

Carnoy, Martin, Rebecca Jacobsen, Lawrence Mishel, and Richard Rothstein. 2005. The charter school dust-up: Examining the evidence on enrollment and achievement . Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Carnoy and colleagues employ student achievement data to compare charter schools with traditional public schools. Using achievement gains, as opposed to static test scores, the authors determine that contrary to much public discourse, charter schools in New York City performed worse than comparable public schools.

Chubb, John, and Terry Moe. 1990. Politics, markets, and America’s schools . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Chubb and Moe, in this book, argue that reforms for educational change in the 1980s did not address the core of the problem they aimed to solve. Chubb and Moe recommend a dramatic change; that school choice and competition should be the basis for school improvement and increased student achievement.

Cooper, Bruce S., and John Sureau. 2007. The politics of homeschooling: New developments, new challenges. Educational Policy 21.1: 110–131.

DOI: 10.1177/0895904806296856 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

In this article, Cooper and Sureau describe the rapid growth of the homeschooling movement in the United States. They describe how homeschooling families are organized and the families’ relationships with public institutions.

Fabricant, Michael, and Michelle Fine. 2012. Charter schools and the corporate makeover of public education: What’s at stake? New York: Teachers College Press.

The authors analyze empirical data to determine whether charter schools are an authentic alternative to public schools. Fabricant and Fine discuss the history, politics, and economic motivation behind the charter school movement and its effects on student outcomes.

Friedman, Milton. 2002. Capitalism and freedom . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226264189.001.0001 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

In this classic economics text, Friedman argues that competitive capitalism serves as a mechanism for economic choice and as a necessary condition for political freedom. He outlines a free market system for schools, using vouchers as a means to exercise choice and competition with the primary goal of enhancing school quality. Originally published in 1962.

Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

Hirschman describes several ways dissatisfaction is expressed in firms—through exit (leaving the organization) and voice (exerting influence for change from within the organization). This argument can be applied to school choice, where schools are firms and students and their families represent members.

Lubienski, Christopher, and Sarah Lubienski. 2013. The public school advantage: Why public school outperform private schools . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226089072.001.0001 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Influenced by recent debates regarding market-based school solutions such as school choice and increased privatization of schools, Lubienski and Lubienski argue against the belief that private schools are superior to public schools, offering evidence that public schools are better-performing. These authors argue that superior performance by private school students is attributable to demographics, and they correct for demographic measures to show that gains in student achievement are higher in public schools.

Lubienski, Christopher, and Peter Weitzel. 2010. The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

This book examines the unintended impacts of charter schools over the last twenty years. In this comprehensive exploration, the authors discuss how the purpose of charter schools evolved from their original goals of introducing competition into the education system to encouraging innovation and providing more equitable access to quality education.

McEwan, Patrick J., and Martin Carnoy. 2000. The effectiveness and efficiency of private schools in Chile’s voucher system. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22.3: 213–239.

DOI: 10.3102/01623737022003213 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This article evaluates the comparative effectiveness and efficiency of private and public schools in Chile. Findings show that nonreligious voucher schools are marginally less effective than public schools in the fourth grade. When assessing student achievement, Catholic voucher schools are somewhat more effective than public ones.

Educational reform presents similar challenges in the United States as in many developed and developing countries. A comparative perspective in educational research highlights shared patterns and diverse solutions, and can lead to an enhanced understanding of how to improve education. Carnoy 2000 introduces the relationship between globalization and education, examining how globalization influences the quality and financing of education, in addition to labor market outcomes. In Levin and Lockheed 2012 , the authors analyze case studies from eight different countries to inform strategies that can improve education for children in low-income communities. McPherson and Willms 1987 examines the effects of a comprehensive reorganization initiative on reducing social class inequalities in Scotland. Comparing the Finnish educational system to other developed countries, Sahlberg 2011 provides a detailed description of the success of educational reform in Finland. The authors of Schmidt, et al. 1997 use a comparative analysis of fifty different countries to reveal the splintered nature of curriculum and instruction in the United States. Torney-Purta, et al. 1999 examines case studies from twenty-four countries to understand how different educational policies and practices influence civic education and knowledge. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2011 provides synopses of country profiles, recommending improvements to the US education system based on features of high-scoring countries’ systems. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2015 highlights success and challenges of the international effort to provide education for all.

Carnoy, Martin. 2000. Globalization and educational reform. In Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures . Edited by Nelly P. Stromquist and Karen Monkman, 43–61. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Carnoy discusses how globalization influences education, in particular globalization’s impact on the financing of education, labor market outcomes, and the quality of national education systems. This chapter also highlights the role of comparative research that uses international assessments (e.g., Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) in understanding the differences among countries.

Levin, Henry, and Marlaine E. Lockheed, eds. 2012. Effective schools in developing countries . Routledge Library Editions: Education 8. New York: Routledge.

This volume contains eight case studies describing educational initiatives for children in poverty in nations including Brazil, Burundi, Colombia, Ghana, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United States. These independent initiatives can collectively inform the future development of effective strategies for children in low-income communities.

McPherson, Andrew, and J. Douglas Willms. 1987. Equalisation and improvement: Some effects of comprehensive reorganisation in Scotland. Sociology 21.4: 509–539.

DOI: 10.1177/0038038587021004003 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

McPherson and Willms examine a policy initiative that required schools to transition from a two- or three-tier selective system—whereby pupils were channeled into grammar, technical, or secondary modern schools—to a “comprehensive” system that served all pupils. Results show that this comprehensive reorganization had a small positive effect on students’ attainment and reduced social class inequalities in attainment.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2011. Lessons from PISA for the United States . Paris: OECD.

This report on student performance on the Programme for International Student Assessment has been greatly influential for curriculum reform in science, serving to analyze US PISA results while describing practices of the highest-scoring education systems.

Sahlberg, Pasi. 2011. Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Series on School Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Chronicling the changes in the Finnish educational system over the past three decades, Sahlberg traces how educational reform evolved in Finland. Contrasting the Finnish system to the United States and other developed countries, this book provides a detailed account of education in Finland—a system focused on the professionalization of teachers, effective instructional leadership, and enhanced trust in schools.

Schmidt, William H., Curtis McKnight, and Senta Raizen. 1997. A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

This study analyzes data from curriculum guides and textbooks from about fifty countries to examine differences in curricula, instructional practices, school factors, and social conditions. Schmidt and colleagues argue that the mathematics and science curriculum in the United States is splintered because there is no unified vision of how to educate students. Because of this splintered vision, the curricula, textbooks, and teaching in the United States are often overly broad in topic but lack depth in content.

Torney-Purta, Judith, John Schwille, and Jo-Ann Amadeo, eds. 1999. Civic education across countries: Twenty-four national case studies from the IEA Civic Education Project . Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

This volume reports the results from qualitative case studies in twenty-four countries examining the circumstances, contents, and processes of civic education. Each chapter within this volume provides a thorough summary of these national case studies, highlighting important issues or themes within civic education.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2015. EFA Global Monitoring Report – Education for All 2000–2015: Achievements and Challenges . Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

This influential report analyzed the progress of over 160 governments to reach the Dakar Framework goal of providing education for all individuals and provided recommendations for the 2015 global sustainable development agenda. The report takes stock of countries’ successes and challenges in meeting this goal, while identifying remaining concerns with regards to gender and racial disparity, the effect of income inequality on schooling, and the poor quality of learning at a primary level.

Access to resources outside of school can influence the educational experiences and outcomes of students, both domestically and globally. Stevenson and Baker 1992 and Baker, et al. 2001 explore the phenomenon of shadow education internationally. Cheng and Powell 2007 examines the transmission of resources across generations in biracial families. Fuller and Clarke 1994 considers the role of culture in understanding the effects of school. Putnam 2015 offers policy solutions to improve the outcomes of low-income students who are subject to the educational opportunity gap.

Baker, David P., Motoko Akiba, Gerald K. LeTendre, and Alexander W. Wiseman. 2001. Worldwide shadow education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23.1: 1–17.

DOI: 10.3102/01623737023001001 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

In this study, the phenomenon of shadow education is explored using cross-national data from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. The authors argue that institutional factors of education, including limited access and lower levels of funding, drive the use of shadow education.

Cheng, Simon, and Brian Powell. 2007. Under and beyond constraints: Resource allocation to young children from biracial families. American Journal of Sociology 112.4: 1044–1094.

DOI: 10.1086/508793 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This study uses data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study to examine the differences in biracial families and monoracial families in the transmission of resources to young children in the United States. Cheng and Powell demonstrate the utility of using refined measures of biracial families (e.g., white father/Asian mother) to examine stratification practices in school.

Fuller, Bruce, and Prema Clarke. 1994. Raising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and the influence of classroom tools, rules, and pedagogy. Review of Educational Research 64.1: 119–157.

DOI: 10.3102/00346543064001119 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

In this article, Fuller and Clarke review how research on the effects of schooling is informed by research in developing countries. The authors discuss the aggregate effect of the school, review findings from developing countries on school inputs, and argue the importance for policy to consider cultural conditions in education.

Putnam, Robert. 2015. Our kids: The American dream in crisis . New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

In this book, Putnam argues the presence of an opportunity gap preventing students from obtaining upward mobility. Putnam discusses differential outcomes for students with varying incomes, family backgrounds, and communities, arguing for policy solutions that benefit the disadvantaged.

Stevenson, David L., and David P. Baker. 1992. Shadow education and allocation in formal schooling: Transition to university in Japan. American Journal of Sociology 97.6: 1639–1657.

DOI: 10.1086/229942 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This article describes “shadow education,” which is described as educational activities that occur outside of formal schooling but enhance a student’s education. Stevenson and Baker explore how shadow education and social advantages of students in Japan are transferred from one generation to the next.

Variation in school funding can introduce additional inequalities in education. Odden and Picus 2008 provides an overview of school finance and the implications for policy. Levin 1998 examines the cost of voucher programs and their effects on socioeconomic and racial segregation. Rebell 2009 and Yaffe 2007 describe the judicial influence and political debate over educational equity.

Levin, Henry. 1998. Educational vouchers: Effectiveness, choice, and costs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17.3: 373–392.

DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199822)17:3%3C373::AID-PAM1%3E3.0.CO;2-D Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This article analyzes a substantial body of empirical data and demonstrates that private schools offer only a small advantage over public schools, particularly for graduation and postsecondary matriculation. In addition, school choice leads to greater socioeconomic and racial segregation of students. Relative costs of a voucher system appear to exceed those of the present system.

Odden, Allan, and Lawrence Picus. 2008. School finance: A policy perspective . 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

This book offers a comprehensive discussion of the history, law, and role of research in school finance, resource allocation, site-based management, and teacher compensation. Odden and Picus offer practical implications of how these different factors may impact the funding of schools in the United States.

Rebell, Michael A. 2009. Courts and kids: Pursuing educational equity through the state courts . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226706184.001.0001 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Rebell analyzes how and why state courts advocate for school desegregation and discusses the success of their efforts. He argues that courts have the authority and responsibility to pursue the goal of educational equity and offers recommendations for how courts can collaborate with policymakers to reach this goal.

Yaffe, Deborah. 2007. Other people’s children: The battle for justice and equality in New Jersey’s schools . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.

Chronicling decades of funding debates in New Jersey, this book examines the legal and political battle for equitable school financing for all students. Yaffe discusses the responsibility that the United States has for its poor and the implications for the role of public schools in providing equal opportunities for students of all backgrounds.

Research on this topic considers the effects of the family and neighborhood on educational outcomes. Astone and McLanahan 1991 explores the effects of family structure and parenting on high school completion. Duncan and Brooks-Gunn 1997 includes research on children growing up in low socioeconomic environments. In Tate 2012 , contributors explore the relationships among health, geography, and human development in education. Buchmann and DiPrete 2006 explores the impact of parental resources on gender gaps between female and male students in higher education. Schneider and Waite 2005 examines dual-career families to evaluate their approaches to work-life balance.

Astone, Nan Marie, and Sara S. McLanahan. 1991. Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. American Sociological Review 56.3: 309–320.

DOI: 10.2307/2096106 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This study uses data from the High School and Beyond study in the United States to examine the relationship between family structure and academic achievement. Astone and McLanahan’s work demonstrates that the effects of parental involvement on achievement and engagement vary by single-parent households, step-parent households, and biological-parent households.

Buchmann, Claudia, and Thomas A. DiPrete. 2006. The growing female advantage in college completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American Sociological Review 71.4: 515–541.

DOI: 10.1177/000312240607100401 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This article examines the causes related to the growing female advantage in college completion. Buchmann and DiPrete argue that parental education levels, presence of a father at home, academic performance, and declining gender discrimination influence female-favorable patterns in college completion.

Duncan, Greg, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, eds. 1997. Consequences of growing up poor . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

This interdisciplinary text includes contributions from social scientists that examine the influence of economic deprivation on child development. Through the consideration of heterogeneous life experiences within low-income settings, the contributors posited several solutions. These policy considerations focus on child welfare, income supplements, and childcare subsidies.

Schneider, Barbara, and Linda J. Waite, eds. 2005. Being together, working apart: Dual-career families and the work-life balance . New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

This book, targeted toward academics, policymakers, and working parents, examines how families attempt to attain work-life balance by examining 500 dual-career families in eight communities across the United States.

Tate, William F., ed. 2012. Research on schools, neighborhoods, and communities: Toward civic responsibility . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

This book includes empirical and theoretical contributions from a diverse set of scholars who consider structural effects on schools. More specifically, the authors emphasize the relationship between geography and location on the social contexts of schools and the potential issues that students face, such as racial segregation, immigration, and college readiness.

At the frontline of education, teachers are a critical component in the educative process. As such, they have been the focal point of education research and policy. Cochran-Smith, et al. 2008 addresses big questions in teacher education, such as the purposes of teacher education. Goldstein 2014 documents the history of the teaching profession. Darling-Hammond 2000 provides a review of teacher policies in the United States and encourages investment in policies that improve teacher quality. Rivkin, et al. 2005 examines the impact of teacher quality on student achievement. Lankford, et al. 2002 explores the distribution of teacher quality across schools over time and finds that low-income and low-achieving schools often have the least-qualified teachers. Konstantopoulos and Chung 2011 examines the persistence of teacher effects and argues that cumulative effects of teaching are an important consideration in developing teacher policy. McKenzie and Santiago 2005 comparatively analyzes international data, documents the importance of teachers in education, and provides positive examples of teacher policy across different countries. Ingersoll 2001 reveals that, contrary to the notion, there is a shortage of qualified teachers and that teacher turnover and retention are due to an excess quantity of teachers. See also Ingersoll 2003 and the Carnegie Knowledge Network .

Carnegie Knowledge Network .

This website brings together statistical research and information on improving teacher quality through value-added systems. Its mission is to funnel and translate the research that is being conducted and to provide a community where these findings can be incorporated into policies and teacher evaluation systems that can improve student learning.

Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, Sharon Feiman-Nemser, D. John McIntyre, and Kelly E. Demers., eds. 2008. Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts . 3d ed. New York: Routledge.

This handbook features texts that address the purposes of teacher education, what teachers should be taught, how teachers learn to teach effectively, and other questions prominent in the scope of teacher education and teacher training. This handbook is composed of framing chapters, commentaries, and artifacts, such as essays, speeches, and articles.

Darling-Hammond, Linda. 2000. Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8.1: 1–44.

DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This article examines how teacher qualifications and other school inputs are associated with student achievement in the United States. Using the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), the National Assessment of Education Progress, a state survey of policies, and case studies, the author obtains findings that suggest that policy investments in teacher quality may improve student performance.

Goldstein, Dana. 2014. The teacher wars: A history of America’s most embattled profession . New York: Penguin Random House.

Covering 175 years of American education, Goldstein traces the progression of the teaching profession from the 19th century onward. Goldstein’s work begins with the Common School Movement and ends with the data-driven approach of the new Millennium, highlighting policies that include the feminization of the teaching force, the rise of unions, and increased teacher accountability.

Ingersoll, Richard. 2001. Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal 38.3: 499–534.

DOI: 10.3102/00028312038003499 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Ingersoll analyzes data from the SASS to understand factors related to the supply and retention of qualified teachers. Results show that staffing problems in schools are not related to a shortage of teachers. Data reveal that the demand for new teachers is driven by an excess of teachers leaving the profession, but not for retirement—creating a “revolving door” in and out of the classroom.

Ingersoll, Richard. 2003. Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

This book describes the profession of teaching, examining if teachers are more similar to professionals or to factory workers in their autonomy, and if this influences their work. Ingersoll demonstrates that because of the nested nature of classrooms within schools, this influences the decision-making powers of the administration, district, and state—allowing teachers a certain degree of autonomy, but new federal and state policies could limit this autonomy.

Konstantopoulos, Spyros, and Vicki Chung. 2011. The persistence of teacher effects in elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal 48.2: 361–386.

DOI: 10.3102/0002831210382888 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

The authors use data from Project STAR (Project Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio) to understand the persistence of teacher effects in elementary schools in the United States. The authors find that the effects of a teacher persist through sixth grade in mathematics, reading, and science. This suggests that cumulative effects of teachers may seriously impact student achievement.

Lankford, Hamilton, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff. 2002. Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24.1: 37–62.

DOI: 10.3102/01623737024001037 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Using New York State data, the authors first examine the variation in the average attributes of teachers across schools, identify schools with the least-qualified teachers, and assess the teacher distribution changes over time. The authors find that low-income, low-achieving New York City schools with high populations of nonwhite students often have the least-skilled teachers.

McKenzie, Phillip, and Paulo Santiago. 2005. Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers . Education and Training Policy. Paris: OECD.

This report was conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2002–2004 and examines the role of teachers across twenty-five countries. The project illuminates concerns about teachers, teaching, and teacher policy. It also highlights positive policy examples that were shown to make a difference. Available online for purchase or by subscription.

Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain. 2005. Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica 73.2: 417–458.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Using multiple measurements over time, the authors explore the impact of schools and teachers on student achievement in the United States. They argue that a higher-quality teacher can have a greater influence on achievement as opposed to a significant reduction in class size, underscoring the importance of teacher effectiveness.

Equity and Equality

The ideals of equity and equality in education are often the aim of social policies and educational reforms—providing access to a quality education for all students in the United States. However, gaps in educational achievement and attainment persist, particularly for children of color and for students from low-income families. To understand the struggles over the structure and effectiveness of the educational system in the United States, Labaree 1997 discusses the tensions surrounding the competing goals of the American education system. Rothstein 2004 explores the various causes of the achievement gaps in education. Duncan and Murnane 2011 investigates a range of research and policies in the United States that contribute to inequalities in education. Buchmann and Hannum 2001 reviews the literature on stratification in education in developing countries. Jencks 1972 examines the social composition of schools in America and argues that the social composition of a school is associated with student achievement. Grubb and Lazerson 2007 discusses how social forces and policies produce advantages and privileges that contribute to growing inequalities in the workforce. Darling-Hammond 2010 argues that academic gaps are the result of opportunity gaps experienced by low-income and minority students. DiPrete and Buchmann 2013 discusses the gender gap in higher education. See also the Education Trust and The Equality of Opportunity Project .

Buchmann, Claudia, and Emily Hannum. 2001. Education and stratification in developing countries: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology 27:77–102.

DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.77 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This article is a review of the research on inequality in education in developing regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Through their examination of cross-national studies, Buchmann and Hannum discuss the use of new data sources in research and the opportunities for researchers to collaborate on similar studies across fields.

Darling-Hammond, Linda. 2010. The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future . Multicultural Education Series. New York: Teachers College Press.

With increasingly diverse student populations in the United States, schools are challenged to educate growing numbers of ethnic minorities and immigrants. This book describes how academic gaps are influenced by growing inequalities, particularly opportunity gaps experienced by low-income and minority students. Darling-Hammond discusses policy implications and reforms aimed at providing all students a more equitable education.

DiPrete, Thomas A., and Claudia Buchmann. 2013. The rise of women: The growing gender gap in education and what it means for American schools . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

The authors provide useful explanations of changes in the school environment to understand the causes and the extent of the gender gap in higher education.

Duncan, Greg J., and Richard J. Murnane, eds. 2011. Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

In this edited volume, a team of researchers from multiple disciplines examines the factors related to inequality in education in the United States, including family resources, neighborhoods, and school conditions—from birth to primary and secondary school experiences through college completion. The contributors suggest that rising inequality may compromise how schools function in America.

Education Trust .

The mission of this organization is to “ensure students of color and low-income students, pre-K through college, have an equitable chance at a good education.” The organization’s website contains research summaries and policy reports on reforms for all age groups. The organization’s core values support effectively using student data, improving teaching practices, drafting policy recommendations, and improving access and persistence in higher education.

The Equality of Opportunity Project .

This project, led by a group of economists and other social scientists, aims to find the most effective ways to address chronic poverty through data analysis. Specifically, this project aims to address declining upward income mobility, and improve the ability of children to have a higher standard to living than their parents.

Grubb, W. Norton, and Marvin Lazerson. 2007. The education gospel: The economic power of schooling . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

Grubb and Lazerson challenge the notion that more schooling for more people is the solution to our social and economic problems. The book describes a mismatch between academic preparation provided in schools and the skills required for the workforce, suggesting that reforms should be targeted at providing more meaningful alignment between high school and postsecondary goals.

Jencks, Christopher. 1972. Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America . New York: Basic Books.

This book examines the impact that schools have on reducing inequality among students. Multiple analyses of a myriad of factors related to academic achievement suggest that educational reform is limited in its capacity to address these larger social issues. Jencks argues that fundamental economic reform is necessary to address social inequality.

Labaree, David F. 1997. Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal 34.1: 39–81.

DOI: 10.3102/00028312034001039 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

In this article, the author presents three ideals of the American education system that have been the source of educational conflicts: democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Labaree posits that because there is no consensus among these competing goals of education, the structure and effectiveness of the education system has been adversely affected.

Rothstein, Richard. 2004. Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap . Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

In this book, Rothstein analyzes various causes of the achievement gap, examining a broad range of research and literature on equality in education. This volume explores school factors as well as the impacts of health care, nutrition, parents, home, and community. The author also expands his arguments by including cognitive and soft skills (e.g., behavior) in his analysis.

The study of racial and ethnic diversity in education life focuses on understanding demographic trends for students and the experiences of the individual student. Carter 2013 argues that the cultural mismatch between teachers and students increases the achievement gap between majority and minority groups. Alexander, et al. 2011 examines the racial composition of schools and what happens to students over winter and summer breaks from school. The Brown v. Board of Education ruling declared separate but equal education unconstitutional. Cronin 2011 examines Boston Public Schools, with implications for urban school reform. Pattillo-McCoy 1999 explores the experiences of black middle-class families and how the black and white middle classes remain separate but unequal. Rumbaut and Portes 2001 , Gonzales 2016 , and Callahan and Muller 2013 describe the experiences and educational trajectories of the children of immigrants in the United States. Lastly, Kao and Tienda 1995 analyzes achievement differences between immigrant and native students in the United States and finds behavioral differences in parents that may explain variations in student achievement. See also Ferguson 2007 , Tyson 2011 , and Cronin 2011 .

Alexander, Karl, Entwisle, Doris, and Olson, Linda. 2011. The long shadow family background, disadvantaged urban youth, and the transition to adulthood . New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.

Using a longitudinal sample of elementary students in Baltimore, Maryland, the researchers examine reading comprehension growth during winter (in school) and summer (out of school) for black and white students across segregated and mixed-race schools. They find that white and black students across all schools make less than expected growth during the school year. In the summer, however, black students in segregated schools made significantly less reading growth during the summer compared to their counterparts in mixed-race schools, thus compounding during-school gaps in reading comprehension.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas , 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

This landmark US Supreme Court case overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 to declare segregation, the separate schooling of black and white students, unconstitutional. The decision declared separate educational facilities as “inherently unequal,” but it did not set a protocol in place for the desegregation of schools.

Callahan, Rebecca, and Chandra Muller. 2013. Coming of political age: American schools and the civic development of immigrant youth . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

In this book, Callahan and Muller examine how high schools play a role in integrating immigrant students’ civic participation using two large national surveys of adolescents and interviews data with social science teachers. The authors also expand their concerns to the high school civics curriculum and social science preparation of immigrant youth.

Carter, Prudence. 2013. Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give all children an even chance . Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199982981.001.0001 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Prudence Carter discusses how schools’ sociocultural environments and practices matter to student engagement and achievement. Carter posits that the cultural mismatch between students and educators hinders educators’ capacity to engage students’ effective learning, which increases the achievement gap between majority group and other minority groups (e.g., black, Latino, and Native American).

Cronin, Joseph. 2011. Reforming Boston schools, 1930 to the present: Overcoming corruption and racial segregation . Palgrave Studies in Urban Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

DOI: 10.1057/9780230340978 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This book provides a comprehensive history of reforms, politics, protests, and racial conflict in the Boston Public Schools. Examining segregation, busing, and white flight, Cronin explores what compels some parents to keep their students in their schools while others choose to leave. This analysis provides implications for the future of urban school reform.

Ferguson, Ronald F. 2007. Toward excellence with equity: An emerging vision for closing the achievement gap . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

This book summarizes fifteen years of research on the black-white achievement gap, looking at multiple factors and policies impacting racial disparities. Ferguson argues for a comprehensive, holistic approach, involving parents as key stakeholders in educational reforms to narrow gaps between black and white students.

Gonzales, Roberto G. 2016. Lives in limbo: Undocumented and coming of age in America . Oakland: Univ. of California Press.

Using ethnographic fieldwork and participant observation of 150 immigrants between the ages of twenty-one and thirty-one, Gonzales investigates undocumented youths and their families in the K-12 system, as well as their job market participation. Gonzales also uncovers the aspirational differences between “college-goers” and “early exiters.” While different educational opportunities and aspirations were evident, ultimately, documentation status still determines younger people’s life chances from adolescence to adulthood.

Kao, Grace, and Marta Tienda. 1995. Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly 76.1: 1–19.

This study uses the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 to examine the impact of generational status on achievement and college aspirations of eighth graders. Kao and Tienda find that behavioral differences between native and immigrant parents help to explain variations in academic performance between these student groups.

Pattillo-McCoy, Mary. 1999. Black picket fences: Privilege and peril among the black middle class . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

This book explores the black middle class in the United States, examining the advantages and boundaries that exist for this group, drawing on a three-year ethnographic study in a Southside Chicago neighborhood. Pattillo-McCoy demonstrates how the black and white middle classes remain separate and unequal.

Rosenbaum, J. E. 2001. Beyond college-for-all: Career paths for the forgotten half . ASA Rose Monograph Series. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

This book focuses on this crisis in the American labor market. Rosenbaum describes findings from survey and interview data and argues that the absence of alignment in the perception and actions among students, educators, and employers is a problem in the United States. In contrast to countries such as Germany and Japan, misinformation, student disengagement, and lack of trust between schools and employers pose challenges to young adults in the society.

Rumbaut, Rubén G., and Alejandro Portes, eds. 2001. Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America . Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

This volume includes contributions by leading scholars of immigration and ethnicity who examine the lives and trajectories of the children of immigrants. The authors explore the rising second generation of immigrants growing up in the United States by focusing on youth of diverse national origins.

Tyson, Karolyn. 2011. Integration interrupted: Tracking, black students, and acting white after Brown. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199736447.001.0001 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

This book draws on ten years of ethnographic data to explore the role of the school in creating the oppositional culture observed among black students in their efforts to avoid “acting white.” The author argues that school practices since desegregation, particularly regarding within-school curriculum tracking among black students, have served to perpetuate anti-academic behavior among black students.

Research on class-based variation in education examines how the social constraints of students and the structural opportunities available in education are related to the educational experiences and outcomes. One classic text that explores social class in education is Lareau 2000 , in which the author uses ethnographic data to understand social class differences in parenting in the United States. The author of Anyon 1981 uses several case studies to examine differences in social class across school settings. Reardon 2011 describes increasing income inequalities and how this growing gap contributes to differences in educational outcomes. Lastly, Baker, et al. 2002 explores differences in socioeconomic status, school quality, and economic development across developing countries.

Anyon, Jean. 1981. Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry 11.1: 3–42.

DOI: 10.2307/1179509 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

In this article, Anyon analyzes data collected from case studies in five elementary schools in New Jersey and examines different social class settings. He argues that although the curriculum and materials were similar among the schools, their data suggest the social stratification of knowledge.

Baker, David P., Gerald K. LeTendre, and Brian Goesling. 2002. Socioeconomic status, school quality, and national economic development: A cross-national analysis of the “Heyneman-Loxley effect” on mathematics and science achievement. Comparative Education Review 46.3: 291–312.

DOI: 10.1086/341159 Save Citation » Export Citation » Share Citation »

Using 1990s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study data, the authors examine the “Heyneman-Loxley (HL) effect” that suggested that school factors were more important than family socioeconomic status in determining student achievement in developing countries. This reassessment found the association between student achievement and family background to be similar across countries in the study, regardless of national income, which suggests that the HL effect has been reduced as access to schooling has increased.

Lareau, Annette. 2000. Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education . 2d ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

This book discusses an ethnographic study that compares two elementary schools—one considered a working-class school and the other an upper-middle-class school, both in California. Lareau argues that parents from the working class are just as interested in their children’s education when compared to their counterparts; however, working-class parents are more likely to yield to the advice of teachers, guidance counselors, and other school professionals, who they regard as having special skills and insights.

Reardon, Sean F. 2011. The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances . Edited by Greg J. Duncan and Richard J. Murnane, 91–116. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

In this chapter, Reardon explores the achievement gap among students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. This study investigates several explanations for this widening gap among students from varying income levels by analyzing several different national longitudinal data sources.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 established that students requiring special education are exposed to the least restrictive educational environment in US schools. Osgood 2008 chronicles over 120 years of the history of special education. Lastly, Carroll and Muller 2018 discusses the history and outcomes of formal and informal curricular differentiation.

Carroll, Jamie, and Chandra Muller. 2018. Curricular differentiation and its impact on different status groups including immigrants and students with disabilities. In Handbook of sociology of education in the 21st century . Edited by Barbara Schneider and Guan Saw, 285–309. New York: Springer.

This chapter discusses the history of formal and informal curricular differentiation in US schools, highlighting the school outcomes (such as skill development and educational expectations) and non-school outcomes (such as health outcomes). Specifically, the chapter reports key findings on course-taking by race/ethnicity, gender, disability status, and immigrant status.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1142 (2004).

This legislation ensures that students with a disability are provided with the least restrictive environment that meets their needs, determining how states and agencies provide early education, and special education services. IDEA includes procedures for determining who receives special education services, parental rights, and individualized education programs (IEPs).

Osgood, Robert. 2008. The history of special education: A struggle for equality in American public schools . Westport, CT: Praeger.

In this book, Robert L. Osgood documents the history of formal and informal special education settings in US public education by defining and characterizing special education, tracing the emergence of special education as a distinct department of public education, and discussing the status of children with disabilities as compared to their nondisabled peers.

back to top

• About Sociology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Actor-Network Theory
• Adolescence
• African Americans
• African Societies
• Agent-Based Modeling
• Analysis, Spatial
• Analysis, World-Systems
• Anomie and Strain Theory
• Arab Spring, Mobilization, and Contentious Politics in the...
• Asian Americans
• Assimilation
• Authority and Work
• Bell, Daniel
• Biosociology
• Bourdieu, Pierre
• Catholicism
• Causal Inference
• Chicago School of Sociology
• Chinese Cultural Revolution
• Chinese Society
• Citizenship
• Civil Rights
• Civil Society
• Cognitive Sociology
• Cohort Analysis
• Collective Efficacy
• Collective Memory
• Comparative Historical Sociology
• Comte, Auguste
• Conflict Theory
• Conservatism
• Consumer Culture
• Consumption
• Contemporary Family Issues
• Contingent Work
• Conversation Analysis
• Corrections
• Cosmopolitanism
• Crime, Cities and
• Cultural Capital
• Cultural Classification and Codes
• Cultural Economy
• Cultural Omnivorousness
• Cultural Production and Circulation
• Culture and Networks
• Culture, Sociology of
• Development
• Discrimination
• Doing Gender
• Du Bois, W.E.B.
• Durkheim, Émile
• Economic Institutions and Institutional Change
• Economic Sociology
• Education Policy in the United States
• Empires and Colonialism
• Entrepreneurship
• Environmental Sociology
• Epistemology
• Ethnic Enclaves
• Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis
• Exchange Theory
• Families, Postmodern
• Family Policies
• Feminist Theory
• Field, Bourdieu's Concept of
• Forced Migration
• Foucault, Michel
• Frankfurt School
• Gender and Bodies
• Gender and Crime
• Gender and Health
• Gender and Incarceration
• Gender and Professions
• Gender and Social Movements
• Gender and Work
• Gender Pay Gap
• Gender, Sexuality, and Migration
• Gender Stratification
• Gender, Welfare Policy and
• Gendered Sexuality
• Gentrification
• Gerontology
• Globalization and Labor
• Goffman, Erving
• Historic Preservation
• Human Trafficking
• Immigration
• Indian Society, Contemporary
• Intellectuals
• Intersectionalities
• Interview Methodology
• Job Quality
• Knowledge, Critical Sociology of
• Labor Markets
• Latino/Latina Studies
• Law and Society
• Law, Sociology of
• LGBT Parenting and Family Formation
• LGBT Social Movements
• Life Course
• Lipset, S.M.
• Markets, Conventions and Categories in
• Marriage and Divorce
• Marxist Sociology
• Masculinity
• Mass Incarceration in the United States and its Collateral...
• Material Culture
• Mathematical Sociology
• Medical Sociology
• Mental Illness
• Methodological Individualism
• Middle Classes
• Military Sociology
• Money and Credit
• Multiculturalism
• Multilevel Models
• Multiracial, Mixed-Race, and Biracial Identities
• Nationalism
• Non-normative Sexuality Studies
• Occupations and Professions
• Organizations
• Panel Studies
• Parsons, Talcott
• Political Culture
• Political Economy
• Political Sociology
• Popular Culture
• Proletariat (Working Class)
• Protestantism
• Public Opinion
• Public Space
• Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
• Race and Sexuality
• Race and Violence
• Race and Youth
• Race in Global Perspective
• Race, Organizations, and Movements
• Rational Choice
• Relationships
• Religion and the Public Sphere
• Residential Segregation
• Revolutions
• Role Theory
• Rural Sociology
• Scientific Networks
• Secularization
• Sequence Analysis
• Sex versus Gender
• Sexual Identity
• Sexualities
• Sexuality Across the Life Course
• Simmel, Georg
• Single Parents in Context
• Small Cities
• Social Capital
• Social Change
• Social Closure
• Social Construction of Crime
• Social Control
• Social Darwinism
• Social Disorganization Theory
• Social Epidemiology
• Social History
• Social Indicators
• Social Mobility
• Social Movements
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Networks
• Social Policy
• Social Problems
• Social Psychology
• Social Stratification
• Social Theory
• Socialization, Sociological Perspectives on
• Sociolinguistics
• Sociological Approaches to Character
• Sociological Research on the Chinese Society
• Sociological Research, Qualitative Methods in
• Sociological Research, Quantitative Methods in
• Sociology, History of
• Sociology of Manners
• Sociology of Music
• Sociology of War, The
• Suburbanism
• Survey Methods
• Symbolic Boundaries
• Symbolic Interactionism
• The Division of Labor after Durkheim
• Tilly, Charles
• Time Use and Childcare
• Time Use and Time Diary Research
• Tourism, Sociology of
• Transnational Adoption
• Unions and Inequality
• Urban Ethnography
• Urban Growth Machine
• Urban Inequality in the United States
• Veblen, Thorstein
• Visual Arts, Music, and Aesthetic Experience
• Wallerstein, Immanuel
• Welfare, Race, and the American Imagination
• Welfare States
• Women’s Employment and Economic Inequality Between Househo...
• Work and Employment, Sociology of
• Work/Life Balance
• Workplace Flexibility
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.126.86.119]
• 185.126.86.119

Introduction to Education Policy

• First Online: 26 January 2021

Cite this chapter

• Izhak Berkovich   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5710-3666 10  

Part of the book series: Policy Implications of Research in Education ((PIRE,volume 12))

473 Accesses

This chapter provides a background for the discussion of the two main foci of the book: (a) the processes of design and implementation of education policy, and (b) the contemporary discourse on problems and solutions in education systems. At the beginning of the twentieth century, education became accepted as a basic public resource, and the idea that the government should shape the policies that guide the education system took root. Since then, the essence of the state, its relations with its citizens, the nature and extent of the education systems, and the importance attributed to them have undergone considerable changes. In recent decades, as a result of the growing dominance of globalization and multiculturalism, public education has been reshaped, and the management of public education systems is changing (Goren H, Yemini M: Comp J Comp Int Educ 48(3):397–413, 2018; Ichilov O: The retreat from public education: global and Israeli perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht, 2009). In this chapter, we begin by explaining the basic concepts, such as policy and education policy, as well as related concepts, such as educational planning. Next, we define what public education is, discuss how a given historical period influences it, and talk about trends in the present era that shape it. We also discuss the key ideologies that shape education, and explore how they relate to education policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abu-Saad, I. (2008). Present absentees: The Arab school curriculum in Israel as a tool for de-educating indigenous Palestinians. Holy Land Studies: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7 (1), 17–43.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abu-Saad, I. (2019). Palestinian education in the Israeli settler state: Divide, rule and control. Settler Colonial Studies, 9 (1), 96–116.

Addi-Raccah, A. (2019). Private tutoring in a high socio-economic secondary school in Israel and pupils’ attitudes towards school learning: A double-edged sword phenomenon. British Educational Research Journal, 45 (5), 938–960.

Agbaria, A. K. (2018). The ‘right’ education in Israel: Segregation, religious ethnonationalism, and depoliticized professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 59 (1), 18–34.

Almog-Bareket, G., & Friedman, I. (2010). The school in the eyes of students: Values ​​and organizational culture. Studies in Educational Administration and Organization, 31 , 56–31. [in Hebrew].

Google Scholar  

Alpert, B. (2002). Concepts and ideas in the curricula as leading texts. In A. Hofman & I. Schnell (Eds.), Values and goals in Israeli school curricula (pp. 9–29). Even Yehuda: Reches. [in Hebrew].

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism . London: Verso.

Anderson, J. E. (2014). Public policymaking (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Apple, M. W. (2006). Understanding and interrupting neoliberalism and neoconservatism in education. Pedagogies, 1 (1), 21–26.

Aviram, R. (1996). The educational system in a post-modern society: An abnormal organization in a chaotic world. In I. Gur-Ze’ev (Ed.), Education in the era of post-modern discourse (pp. 103–120). Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. [in Hebrew].

Ball, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36 (3), 306–313.

Ben-Peretz, M. (2009). Policy-making in education: A holistic approach in response to global changes . Lanham, MD: R&L Education.

Berkovich, I. (2014). Neo-liberal governance and the ‘new professionalism’ of Israeli principals. Comparative Education Review, 58 (3), 428–456.

Brumbaugh, M. G. (1907). An educational policy for Spanish-American civilization. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 30 (1), 65–68.

Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28 , 21–38.

Central Bureau of Statistics (2018). The face of Israeli society report, No. 10 . Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew].

Cheong, C. Y. (2000). Cultural factors in educational effectiveness: A framework for comparative research. School Leadership & Management, 20 (2), 207–225.

Committee on Native Education. (1925). Education policy in British tropical Africa . London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Eyal, O., & Yarm, M. (2018). Schools in cross-sector alliances: What do schools seek in partnerships? Educational Administration Quarterly, 54 (4), 648–688.

Fuller, B., & Robinson, R. (1992). The political construction of education . Westport, CT: Praeger.

Goldstein, J. (1993). Ideas, interests, and American trade policy . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2018). Obstacles and opportunities for global citizenship education under intractable conflict: The case of Israel. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48 (3), 397–413.

Guba, E. G. (1984). The effect of definitions of policy on the nature and outcomes of policy analysis. Educational Leadership, 42 (2), 63–70.

Hallak, J. (2000). Globalisation and its impact on education. In T. Mebrahtu, M. Crossley, & D. Johnson (Eds.), Globalisation, educational transformation and societies in transition (pp. 21-40). Oxford: Symposium Books.

Harpaz, Y. (2013). The desired graduates: Towards a redefinition. Hed Hachinuch, 47 (4), 37–32. [in Hebrew].

Hay, C. (2008). Globalisation and public policy. In R. E. Goodin, M. Rein, & M. Moran (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 587–606). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hill, P. T. (2001). What is public about public education. In T. M. Moe (Ed.), A primer on America’s schools (pp. 285–316). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

Ichilov, O. (1991). Political socialization and schooling effects among Israeli adolescents. Comparative Education Review, 35 (3), 430–446.

Ichilov, O. (2009). The retreat from public education: Global and Israeli perspectives . Dordrecht: Springer.

Inbar, D. (1997). Education policy. In Y. Kashti, M. Arieli, & S. Shalsky (Eds.), Lexicon of education and teaching (pp. 250–249). Tel Aviv: Ramot. [in Hebrew].

Inglehart, R. (2000). Globalization and postmodern values. Washington Quarterly, 23 (1), 215–228.

Isaak, A. C. (1987). An introduction to politics . Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Company.

Jones, T. M. (2009). Framing the framework: Discourses in Australia’s national values education policy. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 8 (1), 35–57.

Kashti, O. (2015, November 13). The Ministry of Education rewrites citizenship studies: More Judaism, less democracy. Haaretz . Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il [in Hebrew].

Katz, M. B. (1976). The origins of public education: A reassessment. History of Education Quarterly, 16 , 381–407.

McDonell, L. M. (2009). A political science perspective on education policy analysis. In G. Sykes, D. N. Plank, & B. L. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 57–70). New York, NY: Routledge.

Michaeli, N. (2014). Introduction: Education and politics in the Israeli education system. In N. Michaeli (Ed.), Yes in our school, articles on political education (pp. 29–29). Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad and the Mofet Institute. [in Hebrew].

Michaeli, N. (2015). Privatization trends in the Israeli education system. In I. Galnoor, A. Paz-Fuchs, & N. Zion (Eds.), Privatization policy in Israel: State responsibility and the boundaries between the public and the private (pp. 237–183). Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. [in Hebrew].

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72 (1), 107–114.

Miron, G. J. (2008). The shifting notion of “publicness” in public education. In B. S. Cooper & J. G. Cibulka (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 338–349). New York, NY: Routledge.

Moore, M. (1990). What sort of ideas become public ideas. In R. B. Reich (Ed.), The power of public ideas (pp. 55–83). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nir, A., & Eyal, O. (2008). Setting a national curriculum: Bridging the gap between professionalism and politics. In J. N. Casey & R. E. Upton (Eds.), Educational curricula: Development and evaluation (pp. 235–251). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Oplatka, I. (2018). Reforming education in developing countries: From neoliberalism to communitarianism . London: Routledge.

Pinson, H. (2007). At the boundaries of citizenship: Palestinian Israeli citizens and the civic education curriculum. Oxford Review of Education, 33 (3), 331–348.

Pinson, H. (2020). The new civics curriculum for high schools in Israel: The discursive construction of Palestinian identity and narratives. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 15 (1), 22–34.

Pizmony-Levy, O. (2017). Big comparisons, little knowledge: Public engagement with PISA in the United States and Israel. In A. W. Wiseman & C. S. Taylor (Eds.), The impact of the OECD on education worldwide (pp. 125–156). Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ram, U. (2007). The globalization of Israel: McWorld in Tel Aviv. Jihad in Jerusalem . New York, NY: Routledge.

Resnik, J. (2020). From government to governance: The incorporation of managerial regulation at the ministry of education in Israel. In G. Fan & T. S. Popkewitz (Eds.), Handbook of education policy studies (pp. 187–221). Singapore: Springer.

Sabar, N., & Mathias, Y. (2003). Curriculum planning at the threshold of the third millennium: The Israeli case. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.),  International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 381–400). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Saunders, D. B. (2010). Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8 (1), 41–77.

Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70 (6), 898–920.

Stromquist, N. P., & Monkman, K. (Eds.). (2014). Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures . Lanham, MD: R&L Education.

Talshir, G. (2006). Citizenship, civil society and education: The Israeli case in the perspective of Western democracies. In D. Avnon (Ed.), Civic language in Israel (pp. 201–233). Jerusalem: Magnes. [in Hebrew].

Thattai, D. (2001). A history of public education in the United States. Journal of Literacy and Education in Developing Societies, 1 (2), 2001–2011.

The Economist (2016, August 27). After freedom, what? The Economist . Retrieved from http://www.economist.com

UNESCO (n.d.). Educational planning: Approaches, challenges and international frameworks. Distance education programme on education sector planning. Module I . Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.jo/Files/(22-12-2013)(1-01-43%20PM).pdf

Vincent, A. (2009). Modern political ideologies . New York, NY: Wiley.

Wadi, H., & Demsky, T. (1995). Education policy-planning process: An applied framework . Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO.

Ward, S. C., Bagley, C., Lumby, J., Woods, P., Hamilton, T., & Roberts, A. (2015). School leadership for equity: Lessons from the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19 (4), 333–346.

West, A., & Bailey, E. (2013). The development of the academies programme: ‘Privatising’ school-based education in England 1986–2013. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61 (2), 137–159.

Wiles, M. R. (2007). What is strategic planning? In M. R. Wiles (Ed.),  Strategic planning for the chiropractic practice (pp. 1–6). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Woods, P. A., Woods, G. J., & Gunter, H. (2007). Academy schools and entrepreneurialism in education. Journal of Education Policy, 22 (2), 237–259.

Woods, P. A., Roberts, A., Jarvis, J., & Culshaw, S. (2020). Autonomy and regulation in the school system in England. In H. Ärlestig & O. Johansson (Eds.), Educational authorities and the schools: Organisation and impact in 20 states (pp. 111–130). Dordrecht: Springer.

Yosifon, M., & Shmida, M. (2006). Towards a new educational paradigm in the Israeli educational system in the post-modern age . Tel-Aviv: CET Innovations in Education. [in Hebrew].

Susser, B. (1999). Nationalism: Alive and well. In From left and right (pp. 308–270). Tel Aviv: Schocken. [in Hebrew].

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education and Psychology, The Open University of Israel, Ra’anana, Israel

Izhak Berkovich

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Berkovich, I. (2021). Introduction to Education Policy. In: Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century. Policy Implications of Research in Education, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1_1

Published : 26 January 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-63102-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-63103-1

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

State of the States: Governors and PK-12 education policy 

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, rachel m. perera rachel m. perera fellow - the brookings institution, governance studies , brown center on education policy.

April 6, 2023

• 10 min read

This blog is part of a Brown Center series called  State of the States: Gubernatorial Policy Priorities in 2023 , in which Brookings experts analyze the education policy proposals outlined in governors’ 2023 State of the State addresses.

The right to a free public K-12 education in the United States is enshrined in state constitutions. As a result, states play the lead role in K-12 education policy. For example, states determine how local public schools are funded (in large part, by providing significant funding to local districts), how educators are licensed to teach, and what students should learn and by when. States also administer consequential standardized exams and determine high school graduation requirements.   

In sum, state governments hold significant sway over what K-12 education looks like across the United States. As part of our series analyzing governors’ “State of the State” addresses, I examine state legislative priorities for PK-12 education with an eye towards identifying promising education policy priorities. I also highlight research that can support policymakers and practitioners working to develop these priorities and ideas into new policies and programs.  

Strengthening the teaching profession by increasing pay and improving the pipeline

Governors in 24 states proposed initiatives aimed at strengthening the teacher workforce in one form or another—a priority shared by Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike. This is almost certainly in response to concerns over teacher shortages in public schools and broader concerns about the plight of the teaching profession. That governors and state legislatures are taking these concerns seriously and thinking about how to strengthen the teaching profession is unequivocally a good thing. On top of concerns over localized teacher shortages , teachers are stressed, and morale is low. Given the vital role that teachers play in our society, it’s critical that policymakers attend to the myriad issues facing the teaching profession.  

Most of the governors who talked about strengthening the teaching profession took direct aim at improving teacher compensation. This is sensible since teachers are significantly underpaid relative to other professions that require similar levels of post-secondary education. Some states like West Virginia and Kentucky are raising all teachers’ salaries by 5%. Other states like South Carolina are raising salaries for all teachers but concentrating the benefits for early career teachers with the goal of raising starting salaries to $50,000 by 2026. South Carolina and Virginia have also proposed offering one-time retention bonuses for teachers.   

This is a good start, but teacher compensation reform can and should go further. First, of the states proposing to increase teacher pay, only a few focused on raising the floor to ensure that starting salaries are attractive to job candidates. As I discuss below, many states are also considering ways to increase the number of people training to become teachers given mounting evidence that the teacher pipeline is shrinking. Increased starting salaries can be an important lever to encourage more folks to enter the profession. Raising starting salaries can also help improve retention rates among early career teachers as turnover rates are highest in teachers’ first few years on the job. Second, as my colleague and other scholars have noted, teacher shortages are localized phenomena and typically concentrated in certain subject areas, districts, and schools. If compensation reform is being designed (in part) to stem the threat of harmful teacher shortages, policymakers should be working to create pay structures that attract teachers to the subject areas and schools most in need.   

Many governors also proposed programs aimed at strengthening the teacher pipeline. A few states proposed developing or expanding grow-your-own programs (GYO) that aim to recruit local community members—including high school and local college students, paraprofessionals and other school-based staff, parents, and/or other adults looking to change careers—to train to teach in their local schools. For example, Gov. Tony Evers in Wisconsin proposed $5 million in grants to support districts in developing GYO programs. These programs show promise for diversifying the teaching workforce and improving teacher retention. If these initiatives successfully move through state legislatures, policymakers and practitioners should ensure that key features of GYO programs are integrated into program design.  

As policymakers consider other ways to ensure the short- and long-term health of the teaching profession, a top priority should be improving working conditions for teachers.

Further, as states consider ways to strengthen the teacher pipeline, it is critical that policymakers work to reduce the upfront cost of teacher preparation for prospective teachers—a strategy that can also help attract more people of color into the profession. This can take the form of loan forgiveness and/or scholarship programs that cover the cost of teacher preparation in exchange for commitments to teach for a certain number of years.   

As policymakers consider other ways to ensure the short- and long-term health of the teaching profession, a top priority should be improving working conditions for teachers. In surveys , stress (notably, not pay) topped the reasons former educators gave for leaving the profession. Poor working conditions push educators out of the profession—a dynamic that places disproportionate stress on high-needs schools. Relatedly, efforts to strengthen the teacher pipeline should also aim to bolster the attractiveness of the teaching profession—in the form of increased compensation, as well as more professional autonomy and opportunities for career advancement .   

Expanding families’ access to affordable childcare and universal pre-K

More than one third of governors announced statewide efforts to expand access to childcare and early learning opportunities. Many governors are specifically looking to expand access to pre-K—with governors in Kentucky, Illinois, and Michigan proposing plans to make public pre-K universal in their states. For example, Gov. J. B. Pritzker in Illinois announced an ambitious plan to make pre-K universally available to all 3- and 4-year-olds, and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan is pushing to make preschool universal for 4-year-olds by 2027. To date, only 3 states and the District of Columbia have universal pre-K programs—a glaring gap that many families struggle to fill. And efforts to create universal pre-K programs are well supported by a large body of research. As states work to design universal pre-K programs, a top priority for policymakers is to ensure that existing programs are scaled while maintaining quality . Policymakers also need to increase salaries for preschool teachers who are grossly underpaid relative to their (also underpaid) K-12 counterparts. Finally, states should be attentive to the ways that expanding universal pre-K can unintentionally create additional financial pressures for already-strapped private child-care providers.  

Several governors also proposed efforts to improve access to affordable childcare for families. For example, Gov. Kathy Hochul in New York proposed increasing income eligibility limits for statewide programs that subsidize (either in part or fully) the cost of childcare. The intention here is good—the high cost of childcare causes many families to choose lower-quality options or drop out of the workforce temporarily. However, efforts to expand eligibility without additional public investment in childcare programs may only increase demand for childcare slots while supply remains stubbornly low.  

In Illinois, where lawmakers increased eligibility for childcare subsidies last summer, Gov. Pritzker proposed a publicly funded initiative to increase salaries for childcare teachers (who are also unacceptably underpaid ). This marks an important first step towards increasing public investment in childcare that I hope other states will take notice of and follow suit. This is also an area desperately in need of more federal investment, although the prospects of a bipartisan effort to bolster the childcare industry seem low.   

Educational savings accounts or voucher programs? Either way, a waste of taxpayers’ money

A number of Republican governors are pushing to expand private school choice via universal education savings accounts (ESAs) or other similar scholarship programs. ESAs are akin to private school vouchers but are far less restrictive. With an ESA, families are given access to a government-administered and funded savings account with money that can be used to educate their child. Arizona’s ESA, for example, provides families with up to $7,000 annually. Most ESAs can be used for private school tuition, homeschool related costs, and a broad array of other educational expenses . Importantly, the recent wave of legislative efforts aims to make eligibility for ESAs universal (as opposed to earlier voucher programs like those in Milwaukee and D.C. that specifically targeted low-income families enrolled in public schools). Based on my reading, expanding this type of private school choice is bad for public education and a huge waste of taxpayers’ dollars. Let me explain why. 

Setting aside the question of whether taxpayers should have access to a portion of public education funds to subsidize private options or the cost of homeschooling, it is disingenuous to cloak this policy under the guise of promoting choice when the primary beneficiaries are those who never opted into public schools in the first place. 

Despite politicians’ claims that ESAs will give more families choice (including in the form of private and religious schools), ESAs do not meaningfully achieve that goal by a long shot. First, ESAs do not provide enough money to cover most private school tuitions, meaning only families that can afford to cover the remaining cost of private school tuition will reap the benefits of “choice” under these programs. It’s better to think of these programs as subsidizing private school tuition for families that can already afford to send their kids to private school. And early data bears this out—in Arizona, 75% of applicants to their ESA program never attended public schools. Estimates from legislative analysts in Iowa , where Gov. Kim Reynolds recently signed a bill establishing a universal ESA program, project that the vast majority of families who would benefit from the program in its first few years are those that never attended public schools. Setting aside the question of whether taxpayers should have access to a portion of public education funds to subsidize private options or the cost of homeschooling, it is disingenuous to cloak this policy under the guise of promoting choice when the primary beneficiaries are those who never opted into public schools in the first place. It’s for these reasons that education historian Jack Schneider and journalist Jennifer Berkshire argue that we should understand this new wave of unrestricted private school choice as a giant transfer of wealth to already well-off families (or as they call it, a “ reverse Robin Hood scheme ”).  

Another important critique of the Republican rhetoric around ESAs is that many families—including, importantly, families that live in rural areas—don’t have any school choices besides their local public schools (other than to possibly homeschool their child). While 82% of families have access to one or more private elementary schools within a 5 mile radius, that number drops to only 34% for families living in rural areas. In Iowa , 42 out of the state’s 99 counties do not have any private schools. In Utah (where legislatures also recently established a universal ESA program), most zip codes do not have a private school. In fact, resistance from rural communities stymied Oklahoma’s efforts to establish a statewide ESA program last year.   

Finally, I want to underscore two final points against creating statewide ESA programs. First, most evidence suggests that statewide voucher programs (ESAs’ more restrictive predecessor) do not boost academic achievement—and in some cases, students may be left worse off. Second, students attending private schools do not have the same civil rights protections as students attending public schools. Outright discrimination against LGBTQ+ students and families—which has been documented in private religious schools across the country—has been a particularly malicious aspect of the current school choice movement. Private schools can discriminate using their admissions policies and/or programmatic offerings—two aspects of schooling that are heavily regulated in the public sector and under-regulated in the private education sector. State legislatures can integrate anti-discrimination provisions into their ESA bills mandating that private schools accepting public dollars cannot discriminate against certain vulnerable groups, but most have chosen not to do so.    

Governors across the country are taking seriously the threat of teacher shortages and a weakened teaching profession, but at the same time (and in Utah, in the same bill !) many governors seek to undermine public education with the expansion of private school subsidies that primarily benefit affluent families. The push to establish expensive and wasteful universal ESA accounts is especially pernicious in the context of a public education system that underpays its teachers and has yet to provide universal preschool to all families with young children —n ot to mention a childcare system that is on the brink of collapse and desperately in need of public investment. Investing in any of those efforts, rather than funding a push to expand private school choice for the affluent few, would be money better spent.   

Related Content

Katharine Meyer

Deven Carlson

November 3, 2022

Early Childhood Education Education Policy K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Modupe (Mo) Olateju, Grace Cannon

April 15, 2024

Phillip Levine

April 12, 2024

Hannah C. Kistler, Shaun M. Dougherty

April 9, 2024

Timeline: A look at the progression of education policy in US politics

Democrats have often held the title of “education party,” but now republicans are claiming that crown..

For decades, Democrats were viewed as the “education party,” enjoying most voters’ trust on issues surrounding public schools and money to pay for those schools.

At various points in history, however, Republicans have intervened in education issues, too, including by lamenting the state of public schools and crafting policies around charter schools and private school vouchers to introduce competition with traditional public schooling.

More: The GOP is strengthening its grip on education. Parents say Democrats are to blame.

Since the start of the pandemic, public perception has shifted on education. Long periods of remote schooling angered parents , some of whom were infuriated by rules requiring their kids to wear masks or be vaccinated to attend classes in person. Republicans claimed to be the parents' rights party, banning mask rules in some states and forcing schools to teach in person again. 

Conservatives have won seats on a number of school boards,  running on campaigns targeting critical race theory . Another wave of candidates are running on the same issue this cycle, with some also targeting LGBTQ+ lessons and the contents of school libraries. Polling from over the summer of likely voters in 62 congressional battleground districts suggests  Republicans now have an advantage over Democrats  on education. 

June 22, 1944

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, signs into law the G.I. Bill, providing education benefits to military veterans. 

Sept. 2, 1958

A Democratic Congress passes the National Defense Education Act, which increased funding for educational institutions to increase America’s prowess following the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, and Republican President Dwight Eisenhower signs it into law .

April 11, 1965

President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, signs the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) into law .

October 17, 1979

President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, signs into law an act establishing the U.S. Department of Education.

April 26, 1983

"A Nation at Risk" publishes during the first term of President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.   The report highlighted the failure of the country’s schools and prompted a wave of education reform efforts.

March 31, 1988

Al Shanker, the one-time head of the American Federation of Teachers, touts the then-novel idea of charter schools in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. 

Sept. 27-28, 1989

President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, a Democrat and chair of the National Governors Association, host the historic 1989 Education Summit in Charlottesville, Virginia. This was also the year the first private school vouchers were created, in Wisconsin, for low-income students in Milwaukee.

April 18, 1991

Bush unveils “ America 2000: An Education Strategy, ” a blueprint – “not a federal program,” as the administration emphasized – for achieving six school-related goals as articulated at the 1989 Education Summit.

The AFT’s Shanker starts to turn against charter schools after deciding that for-profit companies were likely to exploit the model for their own business interests. 

March 31, 1994

Democratic President Bill Clinton signs into law the “ Goals 2000 Act ,” a framework for standards-based education reform that built off the now-failed “America 2000” Plan and is seen as a precursor to No Child Left Behind. 

June 21,1999

Newly elected Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a Republican who made education reform a campaign promise, signs into law the Opportunity Scholarship Program , a voucher program that allowed public funds to support tuition at church-run and other private schools.

Jan. 8, 2002

President George W. Bush, signs into law his iteration of the ESEA – No Child Left Behind , which focused on holding schools accountable for improving student achievement through high-stakes testing. 

The Bush administration begins to distance itself from No Child Left Behind, with Education Secretary Margaret Spellings offering states some flexibility from its requirements if they demonstrate improvements in student achievement.

Jan. 5, 2006

Florida’s Opportunity Scholarship Program is declared unconstitutional . 

In an effort to disrupt the the Democratic Party’s pro-union education platform, a hedge-fund manager and D.C. politician co-found Democrats for Education Reform , a lobbying, funding and advocacy group. 

July 24, 2009

President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, both Democrats, announce the launch of Race to the Top , a massive competitive grant program that incentivized states to adopt the Common Core state standards and policies that would support charter schools.

Outcry over high-stakes testing and the Common Core standards mounts, with parents of tens of thousands of students in states including New York and New Jersey opting their children out of such requirements . (The federal government cannot require schools to adopt uniform standards, but perceptions about that persist.)

Dec. 10, 2015

After years of delay, Congress successfully reauthorizes the ESEA with bipartisan support, rebranding it t he Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and Democratic President Barack Obama signs it into law. 

2016 presidential primaries

Republican candidates including Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio denounce the Common Core.

Feb. 7, 2017

Betsy DeVos is confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the nation’s education secretary, following a gaffe-filled confirmation hearing that helped entrench her as Trump’s least popular cabinet member . 

The COVID-19 pandemic hits the U.S., and most   schools nationwide close down. Some campuses remain closed well   into the following school year, with heavily Republican counties nearly twice as likely to reopen schools as heavily Democratic ones.

The National School Boards Association sends a letter to Democratic President Joe Biden likening threats at school board meetings to “a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.” Attorney General Merrick Garland issues a memo just days later seeking help from local law enforcement in addressing the “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against school officials. NSBA later apologizes for the letter.

Nov. 2, 2021

Glenn Youngkin , a Republican who ran on a “parents’ rights” platform, wins the gubernatorial race in Virginia, reversing the state’s leftward shift.

Feb. 24, 2022

This year’s Conservative Political Action Conference kicks off, including with a session titled “Domestic Terrorists Unite: Lessons from Virginia Parents,” a nod to the language contained in the NSBA’s and Garland’s fall 2021 memos.

March 28, 2022

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signs into law the “Florida Parental Rights in Education Act,” referred to by critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” law . The law bans teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grades. In October, a federal judge rejects a lawsuit challenging the law. 

September 2022

A sweeping universal voucher law  available to all 1.1 million school-age children in Arizona for education-related costs goes into effect after opponents fail to derail the legislation. 

Oct. 6, 2022

A separate but similarly sweeping private school voucher law that also allows parents to use the money on other educational expenses is upheld as constitutional by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. 

• Resources by Topic
• View Resources by State
• Trending Topics
• Data Systems
• Early Care and Education
• Postsecondary Affordability
• School Choice
• School Readiness
• Student Health and Wellness
• Student Learning
• Teaching Profession
• Workforce Development

State Education Policy Tracking

• State Education Policy Watchlist
• Governors' State of the State Addresses: Education-Related Proposals
• The Commission
• Chair’s Initiative
• Newsletters
• Request Information

Education Commission of the States is the trusted source for comprehensive knowledge and unbiased resources on education policy issues ranging from early learning through postsecondary education.

Subscribe  to our publications and stay informed.

Request Assistance

Need more information?  Contact  one of our policy experts.

Education Commission of the States tracks state education policy on a wide variety of education topics. There are three options available:

• Scroll down to view enacted and vetoed bills on a wide variety of education topics for the 2022 - 2024 legislative sessions.
• Click here to view our 2024 State Education Policy Watchlist, which includes pending legislation in a few issue areas.
• Click here to view an archive of state policy tracking for the 1996 through 2021 legislative sessions.

For more information about how to navigate this interactive map:

• Click here for the PDF.
• Click here for the instructional video.

If you have questions or comments, please contact Erin Whinnery ([email protected]).

Education Level:

Early Education (P-3) , High School , K-12 , Postsecondary

Resource Type:

State Legislation

More on This Issue

Copyright 2024 / Education Commission of the States. All rights reserved.

Experts’ Top Policy Priorities for English-Learner Education

• Share article

Greater access to dual language programs, improving family engagement practices, and reimagined funding models were among the top policy priorities for English learners shared at a national convening in early April.

Hosted by the LatinoJustice Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and ASPIRA of New York, a civic and social organization, dozens of English-learner researchers, educators, families, and policymakers came together here to discuss the current national education landscape for these students and what needs to change to better support them.

The English-learner population is one of the fastest growing public school student populations in the United States and includes a growing number of immigrant students.

Experts spoke of the obstacles to high-quality education for these students, what research says about best instructional practices, including translanguaging , and how new laws and national political rhetoric on immigration impact students. One key focus in all this is the need to think about the assets English learners bring to schools and how to help students grow from there.

“We still really think about English-learner students, multilingual students, with this deficit lens. We think about them as this empty vessel that we need to fill up with American knowledge, with [the] English language, instead of thinking about the cultural and linguistic assets that they bring that we should be uplifting,” said Xilonin Cruz-Gonzalez, deputy director for the advocacy group Californians Together, and a speaker at the event.

The education programs that best support English learners are in short supply

One of the top concerns raised by experts when it comes to educational opportunities for English learners is the lack of access to dual language immersion programs , where students engage with academic content in both English and English learners’ home language.

While long-term studies have shown that such programs best support students’ acquisition of the English language and their academic performance, such research is hard to complete given that the biggest impacts aren’t seen until many years down the road, said Martha Martinez, director of research and policy at Sobrato Early Academic Language, or SEAL, an organization supporting EL and dual language education.

This long-term payoff may hinder efforts to scale up such programs. One New Jersey educator at the event spoke of how her school district tends to only invest in programs for a year or two, not giving teachers enough time to demonstrate results and thus making it hard to advocate for programs such as dual language immersion.

Yet Martinez and others spoke of the value of dual language immersion programs, especially in affirming the value of students’ home languages and cultures in an academic context. There are also overall cognitive benefits for native English speakers to acquire another language as well according to past research.

Other event audience members brought up how often English learners with disabilities end up excluded from existing dual language programs. Parents spoke of concerns over cases where students are separated from non-English-learner peers and what impact that might have on their personal, linguistic, and academic growth.

Yet another key challenge to increasing access to dual language immersion programs lies in a lack of bilingual educators qualified to teach in such programs. While the U.S. Department of Education has invested in professional development grants for bilingual education, and various independent programs and districts are working to build up a bilingual educator pipeline, experts spoke of a need for dedicated funding to invest in dual language immersion programs.

Reimagining language use in the classroom and communication with families

Ryan Pontier, assistant professor of bilingual education and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, TESOL, at Florida International University, spoke of how translanguaging plays a role in ensuring true bilingual education is offered to students.

Translanguaging, in the broadest sense , is the ability to move fluidly between languages and is a pedagogical approach in which teachers support this ability.

Even in existing dual language programs, Pontier said that language use is still largely monolingual. For instance, math class is taught in English while science class is taught in Spanish. In a true bilingual setting where translanguaging is practiced, students and teachers would flow through both languages in all subjects rather than thinking of them as separate tools or one language as a bridge to acquire the other language.

On the topic of communication, several parents in attendance spoke of the need for more schools to provide detailed information about the kind of programming students have access to, whether it’s dual language immersion or pulling students out of general classrooms for dedicated English language acquisition instruction. This is especially vital for immigrant households, experts said as they may be unfamiliar with the U.S. education system.

Legal chilling effects on immigrant English learners

While there are federal protections for immigrant and migrant students , Morgan Craven, national director of policy, advocacy, and community engagement at the Texas-based Intercultural Development Research Association spoke about how some laws and political rhetoric can create chilling effects that affect students and their families.

She specifically addressed Senate Bill 4 in Texas, which would let police officers arrest migrants suspected of entering the U.S. illegally. (The law is currently blocked and moving through courts, according to the Texas Tribune .) Craven spoke of how such legislation can make families more hesitant to send children to school and can complicate the role of school resource officers, as students who don’t have legal immigration status might feel unsafe around those police officers.

That’s not the only political issue with implications for English learners. Craven also addressed how at least 18 states now have legislation restricting instruction on topics of race and gender.

“We’re in a time of a lot of attacks on DEI, on affirmative action, so-called anti-CRT policies. And so when we see that efforts to really impact the ability of teachers to speak truthfully about curriculum, to have things like ethnic studies courses, to be able to support culturally sustaining and culturally responsive curriculum and instruction, that has a real impact on English learner students,” Craven said.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Education Policies – A Summary

The main aims, policy details and evaluations of the main waves of UK education policy – including the 1944 Butler Education Act, the introduction of Comprehensives in 1965, the 1988 Education Act which introduced marketisation, New Labour’s 1997 focus on academies and the 2010 Coalition government’s Free Schools. 

Table of Contents

Last Updated on April 28, 2023 by Karl Thompson

Education policies is the largest topic within the sociology of education module . It can be a little overwhelming, and the best step is to learn the basic details of the policies first (taking a historical approach) and then focus on how each policy has influenced things such as equality of opportunity and standards of education.

This brief posts covers the main aims, policy details and evaluations of the main waves of UK education policy – including the 1944 Butler Education Act, the introduction of Comprehensives in 1965, the 1988 Education Act which introduced marketisation, New Labour’s 1997 focus on academies and the 2010 Coalition government’s Free Schools. 

The 1944 Tripartite System

• Selective education – students would receive a different education dependent on their ability. All students would sit a test at age 11 (the 11+) to determine their ability and sift them into the right type of school.
• Equality of opportunity – All students in England and Wales have a chance to sit the 11 + . Previous to 1944, the only pupils who could get a good, academic equation were those who could afford it.

Details of the Act

• Students took an IQ test at 11, the result of which determined which one of three three types of school the would attend:
• The top 20% went to grammar schools, received an academic education and got to sit exams.
• The bottom 80% went to secondary moderns. These provided a more basic education, and initially students didn’t sit any exams.
• There were also technical schools which provided a vocational education, but these died out fairly quickly.

Evaluations

• There were class inequalities – grammar schools were mainly taken up by the middle classes and secondary moderns by the lower classes.
• The IQ test determined pupils futures at a very young age – no room for those who developed later in life.
• Some of the secondary moderns had very low standards and labelled 80% of pupils as failures.
• Gender inequalities – in the early days of the IQ tests girls had to get a higher score to pass than boys because it was thought they matured earlier than boys!

1965 Comprehensives

• Equality of opportunity – one type of school for all pupils

Details of the act

• The Tripartite System was abolished and Comprehensive schools established.
• Local Education Authorities would maintain control of schools.
• There were poor standards in some schools – especially where progressive education was concerned.
• Banding and streaming occurred along social class lines – the working classes typically ended up in the lower bands and vice versa for the middle classes.
• Parents had very little choice in education – it was nearly impossible to remove their children from the local school if they wanted, because it was thought that all schools were providing a similar standard of education.

The 1988 Education Act

• To introduce free market principles ( more competition ) into the education system
• to introduce greater parental choice and control over state education
• Raising standards in education.
• These are the aims associated with Neoliberalism and The New Right .
• Marketisation and Parentocracy (schools compete for pupils parents are like consumers)
• League Tables – so parents can see how well schools are doing and make a choice.
• OFSTED – to regulate and inspect schools.
• National Curriculum – so that all schools are teaching the same basic subjects
• Formula Funding – funding based on numbers of pupils – which encourages schools to raise standards to increase demand.
• Competition did increase standards – results gradually improved throughout the 1990s.
• Selection by mortgage – the house prices in the catchment areas of the best schools increased, pricing out poorer parents.
• Cream skimming – the best schools tended to select the best students, who were predominantly middle class.
• The middle classes had more effective choice because of their higher levels of cultural capital.
• League tables have been criticised for encouraging teaching to the test .

Further Information in these Class notes on the 1988 Education Act .

1997 – New Labour

• To respond to increased competition due to globalisation
• Raising standards
• More focus on Equality of opportunity than the original New Right
• Increasing choice and diversity

Details of policies

• Increased funding to education
• Reduced class sizes, introduced literacy and numeracy hour
• Introduced Academies
• Sure Start – Free nursery places for younger children 12 hours a week and advice for parents
• Education Maintenance Allowance – EMA
• Tuition fees introduced for HE
• Early academies rose standards in poor areas a lot (Mossbourne)
• Generally better at improving equality of opportunity than the New Right
• Parents liked Sure Start but it didn’t improve education (improved health)
• Tuition fees put working class kids off going to university (connor et al)

More details can be found in these class notes on New Labour and Education .

2010 The Coalition Government Government

• Same as the New Right
• To reduce public spending on education due to the financial crisis .
• Cut funding to education (Scrapped EMA)
• Forced academisation – failing schools had to become Academies
• Free Schools – charities/ businesses/ groups of parents given more freedom to set up their own schools
• Pupil Premium – schools received extra funding for SEN and Free School Meals pupils.
• Standards have carried on improving
• Academisation and Free schools are both ideological – no evidence they improve standards more than LEA schools
• Free schools – advantage the middle classes/ duplicate resources
• Pupil Premium – too early to say!

Further information in these class notes on Coalition Education Policies .

Tory Education Policy 2015 – 2019

• Continue the marketisation of education
• Continue the neoliberal agenda of keeping government spending on education relatively low.

Details of Policies 

• Austerity and funding cuts of an average of 8% for schools
• Continuing the rapid conversion of LEA schools to academies and introducing more free schools
• Increasing the number of grammar schools and thus selective state education (subtly and largely by stealth)
• Continuation of the Pupil Premium
• Encouraging schools to shift to the EBacc.
• Introduction of T Level Qualifications (16–19s)

Evaluations 

• We now have a fully blown education market in education meaning possible lack of democratic oversight from Local Education Authorities.
• Grammar schools have increased but these only advantage the middle classes = more educational inequality. 
• The Ebacc potentially narrows the curriculum
• T Levels increase choice and diversity (one positive)

To find out more please see: Tory Education Policy 2015 – 2019 .

Covid Education Polices

• In response to the Covid-19 Pandemic schools were locked down Mid March to June 2020 and then from January to late March 2021 and home based, online learning became the norm. 
• GCSE and A-Level exams were cancelled in 2020 and again in 2021. Teachers awarded their own grades and in 2021 45% of pupils were given an A or A* grade compared to only 25% back in 2019 (when students had sat exams). 
• The Catch Up Premium was introduced in 2021: £650 million paid directly to schools and £350 million for a national tutoring programme. 
• Post-covid funding for schools is set to increase by 7% per pupil by 2024-25. 
• This resulted in a ‘covid education gap’ with children who missed school during Covid falling behind previous cohorts in the progress in maths and reading. 
• There was also a covid disadvantage gap: poor pupils fell further behind wealthier pupils because of differences in standards of home-support during lockdowns from schools. Students from the least deprived schools did almost three hours more work per week during lockdown compared to students from the least deprived schools. 
• Teacher Predicted Grades were obviously extremely generous, to the extent that we entered fantasy land. This gave an unfair advantage to those students receiving these compared to students who will be sitting their exams in 2023. 
• Funding increases to education from 2023 do not cover the rising costs of living. 

To find out more please see: Education Policy Since 2020 .

Education Policies – Signposting and Find out More

These very brief, bullet pointed revision notes have been written specifically for students studying towards their A-level Sociology AQA Education exam. For more detailed class notes on each policy please see the links above or further links on my main sociology of education page .

Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

11 thoughts on “Education Policies – A Summary”

• Pingback: The 1988 Education Reform Act – ReviseSociology

it stands for higher education

Hi what does HE stand for?

• Pingback: Selection Policies in Education – ReviseSociology

What is the evaluation for pupil premium?

Hi – Education Maintenance Allowance

Hi what does EMA stand for

Local Education Authority Schools

Hi, what are LEA schools? Thank you

Hi – MC = middle class, NC – national curriculum.

Hello what does the MC and NC stand for. Thank you

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

National Education Policy 2020: Key Highlights

Last updated on February 11, 2024 by Alex Andrews George

The National Education Policy 2020 aims to bring transformational reforms in school and higher education and thus shape India into a global knowledge superpower.

The Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi approved the National Education Policy 2020 on July 29, 2020. This policy replaced the 34-year-old National Policy on Education (NPE), in 1986.

Built on the foundational pillars of Access, Equity, Quality, Affordability, and Accountability, this policy is aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The National Education Policy (NEP) aims to transform India into a vibrant knowledge society and global knowledge superpower by making both school and college education more holistic, flexible, and multidisciplinary, suited to 21st-century needs, and aimed at bringing out the unique capabilities of each student.

Table of Contents

Important Highlights of National Education Policy 2020

• New Policy aims for Universalization of Education from preschool to secondary level with 100 % GER in school education by 2030.
• NEP 2020 will bring 2 crore out-of-school children back into the mainstream.
• New 5+3+3+4 school curriculum with 12 years of schooling and 3 years of Anganwadi/ Pre-schooling.
• Emphasis on Foundational Literacy and Numeracy, no rigid separation between academic streams, extracurricular, and vocational streams in schools; Vocational Education to start from Class 6 with Internships.
• Teaching up to at least Grade 5 to be in mother tongue/ regional language.
• Assessment reforms with a 360-degree Holistic Progress Card, tracking Student Progress for achieving Learning Outcomes.
• GER in higher education to be raised to 50 % by 2035; 3.5 crore seats to be added in higher education.
• Higher Education curriculum to have Flexibility of Subjects.
• Multiple Entries / Exit to be allowed with appropriate certification.
• Academic Bank of Credits to be established to facilitate the Transfer of Credits.
• National Research Foundation to be established to foster a strong research culture.
• Light but Tight Regulation of Higher Education, single regulator with four separate verticals for different functions.
• Affiliation System to be phased out in 15 years with graded autonomy to colleges.
• NEP 2020 advocates increased use of technology with equity; National Educational Technology Forum to be created.
• NEP 2020 emphasizes setting up of Gender Inclusion Fund and Special Education Zones for disadvantaged regions and groups.
• New Policy promotes Multilingualism in both schools and HEs; the National Institute for Pali, Persian, and Prakrit, Indian Institute of Translation and Interpretation to be set up.

National Education Policy 2020: School Education

With respect to school education, universal access is the key vision. Also, major reforms are brought in curriculum and pedagogy.

Ensuring Universal Access at all levels of school education

NEP 2020 emphasizes on ensuring universal access to school education at all levels- preschool to secondary.

Infrastructure support, innovative education centers to bring back dropouts into the mainstream, tracking of students and their learning levels, facilitating multiple pathways to learning involving both formal and non-formal education modes, an association of counselors or well-trained social workers with schools, open learning for classes 3,5 and 8 through NIOS and State Open Schools, secondary education programs equivalent to Grades 10 and 12, vocational courses, adult literacy, and life-enrichment programs are some of the proposed ways for achieving this.

About 2 crore out-of-school children will be brought back into the mainstream under NEP 2020.

Also read: Examination System in India

Early Childhood Care & Education with New Curricular and Pedagogical Structure

With an emphasis on Early Childhood Care and Education, the 10+2 structure of school curricula is to be replaced by a 5+3+3+4 curricular structure corresponding to ages 3-8, 8-11, 11-14, and 14-18 years respectively. This will bring the hitherto uncovered age group of 3-6 years under the school curriculum, which has been recognized globally as the crucial stage for the development of the mental faculties of a child. The new system will have 12 years of schooling with three years of Anganwadi/ pre-schooling.

Join Now: CSAT Course

NCERT will develop a National Curricular and Pedagogical Framework for Early Childhood Care and Education (NCPFECCE) for children up to the age of 8. ECCE will be delivered through a significantly expanded and strengthened system of institutions including Anganwadis and pre-schools that will have teachers and Anganwadi workers trained in the ECCE pedagogy and curriculum. The planning and implementation of ECCE will be carried out jointly by the Ministries of HRD, Women and Child Development (WCD), Health and Family Welfare (HFW), and Tribal Affairs.

Attaining Foundational Literacy and Numeracy

Recognizing Foundational Literacy and Numeracy as an urgent and necessary prerequisite to learning, NEP 2020 calls for the setting up of a National Mission on Foundational Literacy and Numeracy by MHRD.

States will prepare an implementation plan for attaining universal foundational literacy and numeracy in all primary schools for all learners by grade 3 by 2025. A National Book Promotion Policy is to be formulated.

Reforms in school curricula and pedagogy

The school curricula and pedagogy will aim for the holistic development of learners by equipping them with key 21st-century skills, reduction in curricular content to enhance essential learning and critical thinking, and a greater focus on experiential learning.

Students will have increased flexibility and choice of subjects. There will be no rigid separations between arts and sciences, between curricular and extra-curricular activities, and between vocational and academic streams.

Vocational education will start in schools from the 6th grade and will include internships.

A new and comprehensive National Curricular Framework for School Education, NCFSE 2020-21, will be developed by the NCERT.

Multilingualism and the power of language

The policy has emphasized mother tongue /local language/regional language as the medium of instruction at least till Grade 5, but preferably till Grade 8 and beyond. Sanskrit to be offered at all levels of school and higher education as an option for students, including in the three-language formula. Other classical languages and literature of India also to be available as options. No language will be imposed on any student.

Students to participate in a fun project/activity on ‘The Languages of India’, sometime in Grades 6-8, such as, under the ‘Ek Bharat Shrestha Bharat’ initiative. Several foreign languages will also be offered at the secondary level. Indian Sign Language (ISL) will be standardized across the country, and National and State curriculum materials developed, for use by students with hearing impairment.

Assessment Reforms

NEP 2020 envisages a shift from summative assessment to regular and formative assessment, which is more competency-based, promotes learning and development, and tests higher-order skills, such as analysis, critical thinking, and conceptual clarity. All students will take school examinations in Grades 3, 5, and 8 which will be conducted by the appropriate authority.

Board exams for Grades 10 and 12 will be continued, but redesigned with holistic development as the aim. A new National Assessment Centre, PARAKH (Performance Assessment, Review, and Analysis of Knowledge for Holistic Development), will be set up as a standard-setting body.

Equitable and Inclusive Education

NEP 2020 aims to ensure that no child loses any opportunity to learn and excel because of the circumstances of birth or background. Special emphasis will be given to Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SDGs), including gender, sociocultural, and geographical identities and disabilities. This includes setting up of Gender Inclusion Fund and also Special Education Zones for disadvantaged regions and groups.

Children with disabilities will be enabled to fully participate in the regular schooling process from the foundational stage to higher education, with the support of educators with cross-disability training, resource centers, accommodations, assistive devices, appropriate technology-based tools, and other support mechanisms tailored to suit their needs.

Every state/district will be encouraged to establish “Bal Bhavans” as a special daytime boarding school, to participate in art-related, career-related, and play-related activities. Free school infrastructure can be used as Samajik Chetna Kendras

Also read: Education in India – A Detailed Analysis

Robust Teacher Recruitment and Career Path

Teachers will be recruited through robust, transparent processes. Promotions will be merit-based, with a mechanism for multi-source periodic performance appraisals and available progression paths to becoming educational administrators or teacher educators. A common National Professional Standard for Teachers (NPST) will be developed by the National Council for Teacher Education by 2022, in consultation with NCERT , SCERTs, teachers, and expert organizations from across levels and regions.

School Governance

Schools can be organized into complexes or clusters which will be the basic unit of governance and ensure the availability of all resources including infrastructure, academic libraries, and a strong professional teacher community.

Standard-setting and Accreditation for School Education

NEP 2020 envisages clear, separate systems for policymaking, regulation, operations, and academic matters. States/UTs will set up an independent State School Standards Authority (SSSA). Transparent public self-disclosure of all the basic regulatory information, as laid down by the SSSA, will be used extensively for public oversight and accountability. The SCERT will develop a School Quality Assessment and Accreditation Framework (SQAAF) through consultations with all stakeholders.

National Education Policy: Higher Education

The New Education Policy has a great vision for the Higher Education sector as well.

Increase GER to 50 % by 2035

NEP 2020 aims to increase the Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education including vocational education from 26.3% (2018) to 50% by 2035. 3.5 Crore new seats will be added to Higher education institutions.

Holistic Multidisciplinary Education

The policy envisages broad-based, multi-disciplinary, holistic Undergraduate education with flexible curricula, creative combinations of subjects, integration of vocational education, and multiple entries and exit points with appropriate certification. UG education can be of 3 or 4 years with multiple exit options and appropriate certification within this period. For example, a Certificate after 1 year, Advanced Diploma after 2 years, a Bachelor’s Degree after 3 years, and a Bachelor’s with Research after 4 years.

An Academic Bank of Credit is to be established for digitally storing academic credits earned from different HEIs so that these can be transferred and counted towards the final degree made.

Multidisciplinary Education and Research Universities (MERUs), at par with IITs, and IIMs, to be set up as models of the best multidisciplinary education of global standards in the country.

The National Research Foundation will be created as an apex body for fostering a strong research culture and building research capacity across higher education.

The Higher Education Commission of India(HECI) will be set up as a single overarching umbrella body for the entire higher education, excluding medical and legal education . HECI to have four independent verticals – the National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC) for regulation, the General Education Council (GEC ) for standard-setting, the Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC) for funding, and the National Accreditation Council( NAC) for accreditation.

HECI will function through faceless intervention through technology, & will have powers to penalize HEIs not conforming to norms and standards. Public and private higher education institutions will be governed by the same set of norms for regulation, accreditation, and academic standards.

Rationalized Institutional Architecture

Higher education institutions will be transformed into large, well-resourced, vibrant multidisciplinary institutions providing high-quality teaching, research, and community engagement. The definition of the university will allow a spectrum of institutions that range from research-intensive Universities to Teaching-intensive Universities and Autonomous degree-granting Colleges.

Affiliation of colleges is to be phased out in 15 years and a stage-wise mechanism is to be established for granting graded autonomy to colleges. Over a period of time, it is envisaged that every college would develop into either an Autonomous degree-granting College or a constituent college of a university.

Motivated, Energized, and Capable Faculty

NEP makes recommendations for motivating, energizing, and building the capacity of faculty through clearly defined, independent, transparent recruitment, freedom to design curricula/pedagogy, incentivizing excellence, and movement into institutional leadership. Faculty not delivering on basic norms will be held accountable

Teacher Education

A new and comprehensive National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education, NCFTE 2021, will be formulated by the NCTE in consultation with NCERT. By 2030, the minimum degree qualification for teaching will be a 4-year integrated B.Ed. degree. Stringent action will be taken against substandard stand-alone Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs).

Mentoring Mission

A National Mission for Mentoring will be established, with a large pool of outstanding senior/retired faculty – including those with the ability to teach in Indian languages – who would be willing to provide short and long-term mentoring/professional support to university/college teachers.

Financial support for students

Efforts will be made to incentivize the merit of students belonging to SC, ST, OBC, and other SEDGs. The National Scholarship Portal will be expanded to support, foster, and track the progress of students receiving scholarships. Private HEIs will be encouraged to offer larger numbers of free ships and scholarships to their students.

Open and Distance Learning

This will be expanded to play a significant role in increasing GER. Measures such as online courses and digital repositories, funding for research, improved student services, credit-based recognition of MOOCs, etc., will be taken to ensure it is at par with the highest quality in-class programs.

Online Education and Digital Education:

A comprehensive set of recommendations for promoting online education consequent to the recent rise in epidemics and pandemics in order to ensure preparedness with alternative modes of quality education whenever and wherever traditional and in-person modes of education are not possible has been covered.

A dedicated unit for the purpose of orchestrating the building of digital infrastructure, digital content, and capacity building will be created in the MHRD to look after the e-education needs of both school and higher education.

Technology in education

An autonomous body, the National Educational Technology Forum (NETF), will be created to provide a platform for the free exchange of ideas on the use of technology to enhance learning, assessment, planning, and administration. Appropriate integration of technology into all levels of education will be done to improve classroom processes, support teacher professional development, enhance educational access for disadvantaged groups, and streamline educational planning, administration, and management

Promotion of Indian languages

To ensure the preservation, growth, and vibrancy of all Indian languages, NEP recommends setting up an Indian Institute of Translation and Interpretation (IITI), National Institute (or Institutes) for Pali, Persian, and Prakrit, strengthening Sanskrit and all language departments in HEIs, and use mother tongue/local language as a medium of instruction in more HEI programs.

Internationalization of education will be facilitated through both institutional collaborations and student and faculty mobility allowing entry of top world-ranked Universities to open campuses in our country.

Professional Education

All professional education will be an integral part of the higher education system. Stand-alone technical universities, health science universities, legal and agricultural universities, etc. will aim to become multi-disciplinary institutions.

Adult Education

The policy aims to achieve 100% youth and adult literacy.

Financing Education

The Centre and the States will work together to increase public investment in the Education sector to reach 6% of GDP at the earliest.

Also read: PM-USHA

NEP: Consultation Process

NEP 2020 has been formulated after an unprecedented process of consultation that involved nearly over 2 lakh suggestions from 2.5 lakh Gram Panchayats, 6600 Blocks, 6000 ULBs, and 676 Districts.

The MHRD initiated an unprecedented collaborative, inclusive, and highly participatory consultation process in January 2015. In May 2016, ‘The Committee for Evolution of the New Education Policy’ under the Chairmanship of Late Shri T.S.R. Subramanian, Former Cabinet Secretary, submitted its report.

Based on this, the Ministry prepared ‘Some Inputs for the Draft National Education Policy, 2016’. In June 2017 a ‘Committee for the Draft National Education Policy’ was constituted under the Chairmanship of eminent Scientist Padma Vibhushan, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, which submitted the Draft National Education Policy, 2019 to the Hon’ble Human Resource Development Minister on 31st May 2019.

The Draft National Education Policy 2019 was uploaded on MHRD’s website and at the ‘MyGov Innovate’ portal eliciting views/suggestions/comments from stakeholders, including the public.

In conclusion, the National Education Policy (NEP) is a crucial document that outlines the roadmap for the development of education in India. It is a significant step towards building a knowledge-based society that is equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The NEP aims to transform the education system by providing equitable access to quality education, promoting innovation, and fostering holistic development.

The policy emphasizes the need for a learner-centered approach that focuses on critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving. It also seeks to promote interdisciplinary learning, multilingualism, and the integration of vocational education into the mainstream curriculum.

The NEP’s vision of a flexible and inclusive education system that enables lifelong learning is laudable. However, the success of the policy will depend on its effective implementation, which will require adequate funding, infrastructure, and skilled educators.

Overall, the NEP has the potential to revolutionize the education sector in India and make it more relevant and responsive to the needs of the changing world. It is a bold and visionary document that seeks to transform education from being a means of social mobility to a tool for building a better and more just society.

Also Read: Institutions of Eminence Scheme

Take a Test: Analyse Your Progress

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

About Alex Andrews George

Alex Andrews George is a mentor, author, and social entrepreneur. Alex is the founder of ClearIAS and one of the expert Civil Service Exam Trainers in India.

He is the author of many best-seller books like 'Important Judgments that transformed India' and 'Important Acts that transformed India'.

A trusted mentor and pioneer in online training , Alex's guidance, strategies, study-materials, and mock-exams have helped many aspirants to become IAS, IPS, and IFS officers.

Reader Interactions

July 30, 2020 at 4:52 pm

Sir My doubt is I am a MPhil holder in this year.Is there is no value of my certificate in future.

Regards Revathy.R

August 7, 2020 at 8:28 am

Dear Madam, No, It will help you to complete your Ph.D in short duration. At present you may submit your Ph.D in 4 years. Regards, Jeeva

July 30, 2020 at 4:54 pm

@Revathy: Why do you think so?

June 5, 2021 at 10:55 am

Sir, Is the BA is good graduation for upsc or not ?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

• Call for Papers
• Essay Writing
• Lex Articles
• Internship Experience
• Internship Opportunities
• Career Advice
• Career Opportunities
• Classroom Courses
• Distance Courses
• Online Courses
• International Events

Summary of New Education Policy, 2020

This post has been written by Shaily Jain, a second year law student from Amity Law School, Amity University, Chhattisgarh.

The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi approved the National Education Policy 2020 today, making way for large scale, transformational reforms in both school and higher education sectors. The new policy aims to pave the way for transformational reforms in school and higher education systems in the country. This policy will replace the 34-year-old National Policy on Education (NPE), 1986. This is the first education policy of the 21st century and replaces the thirty-four-year-old National Policy on Education (NPE), 1986. Built on the foundational pillars of Access, Equity, Quality, Affordability and Accountability, this policy is aligned to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and aims to transform India into a vibrant knowledge society and global knowledge superpower by making both school and college education more holistic, flexible, multidisciplinary, suited to 21st century needs and aimed at bringing out the unique capabilities of each student

• What is NEP’s 5+3+3+4 format to replace 10+2?

One of the salient features of the new National Education Policy is shifting from decades-old 10+2 format to 5+3+3+4 keeping in mind a child’s development and capabilities. The new NEP replaces the rules framed in 1986 and restructures school and higher education to make more flexible and with an integrated approach.

• What does 5+3+3+4 mean?

The new NEP has replaced school education 10+2 format with 5+3+3+4. Here’s how school education will be approached according to the new and reformed education policy:

• New school assessment scheme

The new school assessment scheme will come in place from 2022-2023. As per the new assessment scheme, school exams in grades 3, 5, and 8 will test the child’s basic learning with a 360-degree progress report card. The policy has emphasized mother tongue/local language/regional language as the medium of instruction at least till Grade 5, but preferably till Grade 8 and beyond. Sanskrit to be offered at all levels of school and higher education as an option for students, including in the three-language formula. Other classical languages and literature of India also to be available as options. No language will be imposed on any student. Students to participate in a fun project/activity on ‘The Languages of India’, sometime in Grades 6-8, such as, under the ‘Ek Bharat Shrestha Bharat’ initiative. Several foreign languages will also be offered at the secondary level. Indian Sign Language (ISL) will be standardized across the country and National and State curriculum materials developed, for use by students with hearing impairment.

• Online Education and Digital Education:

The NEP 2020 aims at promoting online education consequent to the recent rise in epidemics and pandemics to ensure preparedness with alternative modes of quality education whenever and wherever traditional and in-person modes of education are not possible, has been covered. A dedicated unit to orchestrate the building of digital infrastructure, digital content and capacity building will be created in the MHRD to look after the e-education needs of both school and higher education.

Key Points of New Educational Policy 2020 :  

School Education 

• New Policy aims for universalization of education from pre-school to secondary level with 100 % Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in school education by 2030. 
• NEP 2020 will bring 2 crores out of school children back into the mainstream through the open schooling system.
• The current 10+2 system to be replaced by a new 5+3+3+4 curricular structure corresponding to ages 3-8, 8-11, 11-14, and 14-18 years respectively. This will bring the hitherto uncovered age group of 3-6 years under the school curriculum, which has been recognized globally as the crucial stage for the development of mental faculties of a child. The new system will have 12 years of schooling with three years of Anganwadi/ pre-schooling.
• Emphasis on Foundational Literacy and Numeracy, no rigid separation between academic streams, extracurricular, vocational streams in schools; Vocational Education to start from Class 6 with Internships
• Teaching up to at least Grade 5 to be in mother tongue/ regional language. No language will be imposed on any student.
• Assessment reforms with 360-degree Holistic Progress Card, tracking Student Progress for achieving Learning Outcomes

Higher Education

• Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education to be raised to 50 % by 2035; 3.5 crore seats to be added in higher education.
• The policy envisages broad-based, multi-disciplinary, holistic Under Graduate education with flexible curricula, creative combinations of subjects, integration of vocational education, and multiple entries and exit points with appropriate certification. UG education can be of 3 or 4 years with multiple exit options and appropriate certification within this period.
• Academic Bank of Credits to be established to facilitate Transfer of Credits
• Multidisciplinary Education and Research Universities (MERUs), at par with IITs, IIMs, to be set up as models of best multidisciplinary education of global standards in the country.
• The National Research Foundation will be created as an apex body for fostering a strong research culture and building research capacity across higher education.
• Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) will be set up as a single overarching umbrella body for entire higher education, excluding medical and legal education. HECI to have four independent verticals – National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC) for regulation, General Education Council (GEC ) for standard-setting, Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC) for funding, and National Accreditation Council( NAC) for accreditation. Public and private higher education institutions will be governed by the same set of norms for regulation, accreditation, and academic standards.
• Affiliation of colleges is to be phased out in 15 years and a stage-wise mechanism is to be established for granting graded autonomy to colleges. Over some time, it is envisaged that every college would develop into either an Autonomous degree-granting College or a constituent college of a university.
• An autonomous body, the National Educational Technology Forum (NETF), will be created to provide a platform for the free exchange of ideas on the use of technology to enhance learning, assessment, planning, administration.
• NEP 2020 emphasizes setting up of Gender Inclusion Fund, Special Education Zones for disadvantaged regions and groups
• The Centre and the States will work together to increase the public investment in the Education sector to reach 6% of GDP at the earliest.
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/new-education-policy-2020-live-updates-important-takeaways/story-yYm1QaeNyFW4uTTU3g9bJO.html
• https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/reading-new-education-policy-india-schools-colleges-6531603/
• Image from Hindustan Times

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Signup for our newsletter and get notified when we publish new articles for free!

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

6. teachers’ views on the state of public k-12 education.

Overall, teachers have a negative view of the U.S. K-12 education system – both the path it’s been on in recent years and what its future might hold.

The vast majority of teachers (82%) say that the overall state of public K-12 education has gotten worse in the last five years. Only 5% say it’s gotten better, and 11% say it has gotten neither better nor worse.

Looking to the future, 53% of teachers expect the state of public K-12 education to be worse five years from now. One-in-five say it will get better, and 16% expect it to be neither better nor worse.

We asked teachers who say the state of public K-12 education is worse now than it was five years ago how much each of the following has contributed:

• The current political climate (60% of teachers say this is a major reason that the state of K-12 education has gotten worse)
• The lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (57%)
• Changes in the availability of funding and resources (46%)

Elementary school teachers are especially likely to point to resource issues – 54% say changes in the availability of funding and resources is a major reason the K-12 education system is worse now. By comparison, 41% of middle school and 39% of high school teachers say the same.

Differences by party

Overall, teachers who are Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are as likely as Republican and Republican-leaning teachers to say that the state of public K-12 education is worse than it was five years ago.

But Democratic teachers are more likely than Republican teachers to point to the current political climate (65% vs. 54%) and changes in the availability of funding and resources (50% vs. 40%) as major reasons.

Democratic and Republican teachers are equally likely to say that lasting effects of the pandemic are a major reason that the public K-12 education is worse than it was five years ago (57% each).

K-12 education and political parties

We asked teachers which political party they trust to do a better job on various aspects of public K-12 education.

Across each of the issues we asked about, roughly a third or more of teachers say they don’t trust either party to do a better job. In particular, a sizable share (42%) trust neither party when it comes to shaping the school curriculum.

On balance, more teachers say they trust the Democratic Party to do a better job handling the things we asked about than say they trust the Republican Party.

About a third of teachers say they trust the Democratic Party to do a better job in ensuring adequate funding for schools, adequate pay and benefits for teachers, and equal access to high quality K-12 education for students. Only about one-in-ten teachers say they trust the Republican Party to do a better job in these areas.

A quarter of teachers say they trust the Democratic Party to do a better job in shaping the school curriculum and making schools safer; 11% and 16% of teachers, respectively, say they trust the Republican Party in these areas.

Across all the items we asked about, shares ranging from 15% to 17% say they are not sure which party they trust more, and shares ranging from 4% to 7% say they trust both parties equally.

A majority of public K-12 teachers (58%) identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. About a third (35%) identify with or lean toward the GOP.

For each aspect of the education system we asked about, both Democratic and Republican teachers are more likely to say they trust their own party to do a better job than to say they trust the other party.

However, across most of these areas, Republican teachers are more likely to say they trust neither party than to say they trust their own party.

For example, about four-in-ten Republican teachers say they trust neither party when it comes to ensuring adequate funding for schools and equal access to high quality K-12 education for students. Only about a quarter of Republican teachers say they trust their own party on these issues.

The noteworthy exception is making schools safer, where similar shares of Republican teachers trust their own party (41%) and neither party (35%) to do a better job.

Social Trends Monthly Newsletter

Sign up to to receive a monthly digest of the Center's latest research on the attitudes and behaviors of Americans in key realms of daily life

Report Materials

Table of contents, ‘back to school’ means anytime from late july to after labor day, depending on where in the u.s. you live, among many u.s. children, reading for fun has become less common, federal data shows, most european students learn english in school, for u.s. teens today, summer means more schooling and less leisure time than in the past, about one-in-six u.s. teachers work second jobs – and not just in the summer, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. A lock ( ) or https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Keyboard Navigation

• Agriculture and Food Security
• Anti-Corruption
• Conflict Prevention and Stabilization
• Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance
• Economic Growth and Trade
• Environment, Energy, and Infrastructure
• Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment
• Global Health
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Innovation, Technology, and Research
• Water and Sanitation
• Burkina Faso
• Central Africa Regional
• Central African Republic
• Côte d’Ivoire
• Democratic Republic of the Congo
• East Africa Regional
• Power Africa
• Republic of the Congo
• Sahel Regional
• Sierra Leone
• South Africa
• South Sudan
• Southern Africa Regional
• West Africa Regional
• Afghanistan
• Central Asia Regional
• Indo-Pacific
• Kyrgyz Republic
• Pacific Islands
• Philippines
• Regional Development Mission for Asia
• Timor-Leste
• Turkmenistan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• North Macedonia
• Central America and Mexico Regional Program
• Dominican Republic
• Eastern and Southern Caribbean
• El Salvador
• Middle East Regional Platform
• West Bank and Gaza
• Dollars to Results
• Data Resources
• Strategy & Planning
• Budget & Spending
• Performance and Financial Reporting
• FY 2023 Agency Financial Report
• Records and Reports
• Budget Justification
• Our Commitment to Transparency
• Policy and Strategy
• How to Work with USAID
• Find a Funding Opportunity
• Organizations That Work With USAID
• Resources for Partners
• Get involved
• Business Forecast
• Safeguarding and Compliance
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility
• Mission, Vision and Values
• News & Information
• Operational Policy (ADS)
• Organization
• Stay Connected
• USAID History
• Video Library
• Coordinators
• Nondiscrimination Notice
• Collective Bargaining Agreements
• Disabilities Employment Program
• Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
• Reasonable Accommodations
• Urgent Hiring Needs
• Vacancy Announcements
• Search Search Search

USAID Announces Launch of New U.S. Government Strategy on International Basic Education

For Immediate Release

Office of Press Relations [email protected]

Press Release

Today, Administrator Samantha Power announced the launch of the new U.S. Government  Strategy on International Basic Education  (2024–2029) reaffirming the United States’ commitment to investing in and supporting quality and inclusive education worldwide. The Strategy brings together ten departments and offices across the U.S. government, including the Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, Department of Defense, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Millennium Challenge Corporation, National Security Council, the Peace Corps, and USAID. 

Unfortunately, too many students face extraordinary obstacles to learning. An estimated 70 percent of ten-year-olds in low- and middle-income countries are unable to read a simple text. Less than 25 percent of youth in those countries are on track to attain the skills needed to thrive in school, work, and life. Despite challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing conflicts and crises disrupting education, U.S. government programs increased the number of learners who obtain foundational reading skills and meet country benchmarks in 15 countries during and after the pandemic emergency. 

Together, U.S. government agencies and departments will work with partner countries toward three shared objectives: to improve learning outcomes; expand access to high-quality education, particularly for the most historically marginalized; and coordinate and leverage resources to drive results. The announcement highlights our core focus on increasing learning outcomes and expanding access to quality education, particularly for the historically marginalized. The new Strategy integrates lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, including strengthening education systems to be more inclusive and resilient. 

Over the course of the previous 2019-2023 USG Strategy on International Basic Education, the U.S. government reached more than 34 million learners annually through international basic education programs.

Quality education for all children is integral to achieving sustainable development in partner countries, and the agencies and departments supporting the Strategy remain committed to achieving this goal. USAID education programs continue to be guided by the  USAID Education Policy , which reinforces local knowledge, local leadership and country-led programs for education system strengthening.

U.S. Government Strategy on International Basic Education

Body The U.S. Government Strategy on International Basic Education (2024–2029) affirms the U.S. government’s commitment to investing in and supporting quality and inclusive education worldwide. It provides a framework, with shared objectives and strategic approaches, to achieve a world where resilient countries enable all learners to gain the education and skills needed to build more hopeful and prosperous futures for themselves, their families, communities, and countries.

Related Press Releases

Usaid graduates more than 1,380 youth corps leaders in first of five graduations.

• March 15, 2024

U.S., Philippines Partner to Provide Higher Education Opportunities for Burmese Youth

• March 5, 2024

USAID Launches Grants Program to Strengthen Youth Skills for Community Development

• March 4, 2024

United States Provides Grade 1 and Grade 2 Textbooks Nationwide to Lao PDR

• March 1, 2024

Share This Page

2014-2015 First Regular Session | 70th General Assembly

Second Regular Session | 74th General Assembly

This website requires javascript to run optimally on computers, mobile devices, and screen readers. Please enable javascript for the best experience!

S_ED_2024A 04/08/2024 01:36:27 PM Committee Summary

Hb24-1154 - referred to the committee of the whole, hb24-1323 - referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr. Dilpreet Jammu, representing The Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, testified in support of the bill.

Ms. Dawn Fritz, representing Colorado Parent Teacher Association, testified in support of the bill.

Additional written testimony was submitted to the committee (Attachment A).

Colorado General Assembly

[email protected]

Colorado legislature email addresses ending in @state.co.us  are no longer active. Please replace @state.co.us with @coleg.gov for Colorado legislature email addresses.  Details

The effective date for bills enacted without a safety clause is August 7, 2024, if the General Assembly adjourns sine die on May 8, 2024, unless otherwise specified. Details

Find your Senator and share your views on important issues.

Senate Bill S9022

Exempts Wantagh school district from regulations regarding the use of indigenous mascots

Share this bill

• ." class="c-detail--social-item bill">

Sponsored By

Steven D. Rhoads

(R, C) 5th Senate District

Current Bill Status - In Senate Committee Education Committee

• In Committee Assembly
• In Committee Senate
• On Floor Calendar Assembly
• On Floor Calendar Senate
• Passed Assembly
• Passed Senate
• Delivered to Governor
• Signed By Governor

Do you support this bill?

Please enter your contact information

Optional services from the NY State Senate:

Include a custom message for your Senator? (Optional)

2023-S9022 (ACTIVE) - Details

2023-s9022 (active) - summary.

Exempts Wantagh union free school district from laws, rules, or regulations regarding the use of indigenous names, mascots, and logos.

2023-S9022 (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

• View More (70 Lines)

2023-S9022 (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf

Open Legislation is a forum for New York State legislation. All comments are subject to review and community moderation is encouraged.

Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity, hate or toxic speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Attempts to intimidate and silence contributors or deliberately deceive the public, including excessive or extraneous posting/posts, or coordinated activity, are prohibited and may result in the temporary or permanent banning of the user. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday. By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.

Create an account . An account allows you to sign petitions with a single click, officially support or oppose key legislation, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation .

Mint Explainer: The crisis of educated unemployed youth

The lack of jobs for the country's young, educated population might not be a major election issue, but clearly, India has not been able to make the most of its demographic profile. 

Thousands of educated young men and women are unable to find jobs that match their skills and education, and are unable to contribute to the economic growth of the country meaningfully. Most of the jobs created are those that require unskilled and low-skilled workers, concluded a recently published report on youth employment by the Institute of Human Development in collaboration with the International Labour Organization.

It is a problem that the next government needs to consider as India looks to become a $5 trillion economy by 2027. The ILO suggests that the policy agenda should involve making production and growth more employment-intensive, improving the quality of jobs, and making skills-training and active labour market policies more effective. 

In the past, the government’s advisers have spoken about the need to focus on labour-intensive export-oriented manufacturing such as apparel and footwear to create jobs. That remains an unfinished agenda.

Mint  explains how deep is the job crisis for the vast number of young people who join the labour force every year.

What is the situation for youth employment in the country?

India experienced mostly jobless growth in the first 19 years of the current century, a period when India had seen stable governments under three different prime ministers. At the national level, employment grew at an annual rate of 1.6% between 2000 and 2012 and then stagnated with a 0.01% rise till 2019, even as the economy grew at 6-7% on average during those years. Growth in job creation picked up after the pandemic, and that can be attributed to a rise in employment in agriculture. However, that surge in agriculture jobs was due to a lack of opportunities outside the farm sector.

What is the contribution of manufacturing sector in employment generation?

The manufacturing sector, which can absorb a lot of skilled and educated workers, lagged in employment creation even though the output of the sector as measured by gross-value added rose. China with its mega production lines provided millions of jobs, and when manufacturing moved to lower-cost centres such as Vietnam, those countries experienced growth in factory jobs. However, in India, employment in the manufacturing sector rose just 1.7% even as its gross value added grew 7.5% per year in 2009-19. 

Manufacturing sector job growth gained pace only following the reopening of the economy after a harsh lockdown enforced to contain the spread of the covid-19 pandemic. Yet, job growth at 3% lagged the relatively muted gross value-added growth of 3.5%.

Is services sector better? 

Job growth in the services sector, which despite absorbing millions including the young and educated, too lagged the growth in gross value-added, according to the IHD-ILO report. But it certainly performed better than the manufacturing sector. Against a rise of 7.5% in gross value-added per year in 2000-19, employment in the services sector grew by 2.9%. Between 2019 and 2022, when gross value-added growth slowed to 2%, mostly due to a slowdown in software services, employment grew 1.1%.

Construction was the only sector that consistently created employment, though most of it was low-paid informal jobs.

How severe is the level of unemployment among educated youth?

An estimated 7-8 million youths are added to the labour force every year. That is equivalent to the population of a state such as Himachal Pradesh. Given the profile of India’s demography, similar numbers will continue to join the labour force for some more years. 

About 27% of India’s 2021 population of 1.36 billion were in the age group of 15-29 years, that is about 367.2 million people. By 2036, the share of youth in India’s projected population of 1.52 billion is expected to decline to 23%, but their numbers will still be very large at 349.6 million. While most of the younger ones would be in education, those who cannot find appropriate work will be forced to sit out or take up jobs that won’t make use of their qualifications.

Youth unemployment continues to be in double digits, even though it has declined from 17.5% in 2019 to 12.1% in 2022. The IHD-ILO report notes that the incidence of unemployment was much higher among young people in urban areas than in rural areas and among younger youth than older youth.

Since 2000, the youth unemployment rate has risen by more than four percentage points with an increase in the level of education. The unemployment rate in 2022 among youths with a graduate degree was 28.7% compared to 3.2% for those with less than a primary education. 

“This indicates a problem of unemployment for highly educated youths, who accounted for nearly half of the total unemployed non-student youths in 2022," the report stated. 

Underemployment is another problem, and that was seen to be higher among less-educated and poor youths.

What is scene youth with technical education and vocational training?

Technical education and vocational training also did not ensure employment for the young workers. Analysis by the IHD-ILO team found that in 2022 the unemployment rate among youths with a graduate diploma was 31.1% and those with technical training degree at 29.4%.

What is the state of unemployment among women?

Overall, young women are not only less likely to be employed, but they also have lower participation rates in education and training. 

In 2022, over 48% of young women, equivalent to 84.9 million, were not engaged in employment, education or training against 9.8%, or 18.5 million, young men. Encouragingly, that proportion for women fell below 50% for the first time since 2000. 

The overall unemployment rate for young women is more or less similar to that for young men in most of the recent years, even though fewer females sought work. However, the unemployment rate for educated women tended to be higher at 21.4% compared to 17.5% for men, and even higher at 34.5% for female graduates compared to 26.4% for men with similar qualifications.

• #mint-explainer
• #digital exclusives

MINT SPECIALS

Wait for it….

Log in to our website to save your bookmarks. It'll just take a moment.

You are just one step away from creating your watchlist!

Oops! Looks like you have exceeded the limit to bookmark the image. Remove some to bookmark this image.

Your session has expired, please login again.

Congratulations!

You are now subscribed to our newsletters. In case you can’t find any email from our side, please check the spam folder.

Subscribe to continue

This is a subscriber only feature Subscribe Now to get daily updates on WhatsApp