Responses

Abstract

The historical account of federal involvement in education by Carl Kaestle and Marshall Smith accurately describes what occurred and is judicious in its pronouncements. It is accurate in several respects. The enlargement of federal responsibility was continuous with earlier trends enlarging state responsibility. What happened in federal educational policy did parallel similar developments in other aspects of American life. It warns us away from simplistic notions of causality—that Sputnik, for example, caused the educational reform movement of the late 1950s. It is right in suggesting that the line is often blurred between those who want social activities to be the essential experience of schooling and those who call for intellectual rigor. Their paper makes it clear that, despite some complaining, local educational authorities have been happy with many if not most aspects of federal policy. It is especially right to note that the critical issue has not been federal policy per se but rather what the federal government was trying to do—that is, end racial discrimination, improve opportunities for the poor, enhance bilingual instruction,and draw the handicapped into the mainstream. Those are the issues, not some vague perception of something called federal policy. Indeed, there probably is no federal policy; there are programs, some of them highly controversial, others less so. Finally,Kaestle and Smith are right to point to the uncertain outcomes of federal policy,and to the difficulties in the legislation that was passed and the problems posed by administrative structures.