The Role of the States in Federal Education Programs

Abstract

Milbrey McLaughlin's analysis of selected state responses to the 1981 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) suggests that the New Federalism in education will have a number of negative consequences. She argues that although the federal programs consolidated by this legislation needed reform, ECIA creates new problems that will hamper the achievement of its goals of providing services for needy students and supporting efforts to improve educational practice. The act not only reduces funding for these purposes, but also disrupts practitioner networks, diminishes state authority and flexibility, and Balkanizes federal education policy. Lorenza Calvillo-Craig concurs with the analysis of ECIA, emphasizing that states are unlikely to continue to address the needs of the educationally disadvantaged. She takes issue, however, with the assertion that previous categorical programs generated unnecessary red tape. Richard Hodes argues that while many of the criticisms of ECIA may be valid, the act is not in fact an expression of the New Federalism. He endorses the New Federalism as a means of reasserting the Tenth Amendment, and debates the assertion that many states lack the capacity to assume the responsibility given them by ECIA.