Politics, Capacity, and a Pandemic: Equity and Early Implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act

• In Event: Addressing Equity Through Federal Education Policy During the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations

Abstract

Purpose

In 1965, the federal government passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was intended to promote equal access to educational opportunities. It was reauthorized most recently in 2015 as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Before ESSA, education policy had become more centralized, and ensuring equity justified federal involvement in education (Wong, 2020). ESSA reversed this trend, providing state education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies substantial flexibility (Author, 2015; DeBray, 2006). The purpose of this study is to examine states’ early implementation of ESSA’s equity-related provisions and states’ alterations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Perspective

ESSA provides SEAs with flexibility as well as equity guardrails including annual testing, 95% participation in testing, reporting by subgroups, and state intervention in low-performing schools (McGuinn, 2016). Flexibility could lead to SEAs enhancing equity by improving assessments, accountability, and school turnaround (Jochim, 2016). However, equity concerns exist as states can set their own proficiency goals, definitions, and timelines for improvement (Duff & Wohlstetter, 2019; Morita-Mullaney & Singh, 2021). Actions of several states after passage of No Child Left Behind suggest that such concerns may be warranted (Peterson & Hess, 2008; Weiss & McGuinn, 2017).

Methods and Data

This qualitative exploratory case study uses an embedded single-case study design (Yin, 2018). Our case is the process of implementing equity-related provisions, and four states are embedded units. The four states provide maximum variation in ESSA plan equity ratings and geographical region. Data sources include documents and interviews. Through document analysis (Bowen, 2009), we analyzed 126 documents including primary and secondary sources. We interviewed 14 state chiefs and senior SEA officials. Using inductive coding, we generated 37 codes, then 15 broader categories, and ultimately five themes (Saldaña, 2013). We sought disconfirming evidence and conducted member checking with participants.

Findings

States vary widely in interpreting and implementing ESSA’s equity-related provisions. Some approached ESSA with a compliance mentality, but others developed innovative initiatives to support struggling schools. Different accountability measures were adopted by various states, with some enhancing equity and others not. New report card requirements created logistical challenges but ultimately provided greater transparency. States took different approaches to addressing inequities during the pandemic and data was used in new ways to support schools during the pandemic. All four states underscored difficulties due to limited capacity, funding shortages, and politics. Overall, while all four states indicated desires to promote equity, they expressed clear limitations in their abilities to do so.

Significance

A dearth of research exists on SEAs (Brown et al., 2011), which play a significant role in implementing ESSA and facilitating systemic school improvement. More research is needed on capacity building at state and local levels to investigate these challenges. Further, as states diverge in implementing ESSA’s equity-based provisions, comparative state-level research is needed to explain these differences. Our study demonstrates that the ability to promote equity through ESSA largely depends on the design and implementation of state plans, resulting in wide variation among states regarding political will and capacity to promote equitable educational opportunities.

Authors

• Jenn Ayscue, North Carolina State University

• Lance D. Fusarelli, North Carolina State University

• Elizabeth Uzzell, University of Virginia