With the inception of Head Start and a general focus on early childhood, ESEA reflected the thinking of the time that primary education really was primary in the sense of being fundamental, not just first. But one effect of ESEA was not salutary. Where social programs formerly had been evaluated largely in terms of what they did with their money, now, for the first time, educators had to provide evidence that the money spent on schools actually made things better. When they looked for instruments to use in program evaluation, they turned mostly to multiple-choice tests. If the tests properly represented what children needed to learn, this would be no problem.
Many teachers still view their role as that of culture-conserving transmitters of knowledge.
A truly constructivist approach to instruction would make students much more active agents in their own education. Moreover, the GAO study finds that most schools simply aren't equipped to handle the newer technologies, and many will require substantial rewiring to accommodate them in any meaningful fashion. George Kaplan once observed that part of education's problem in getting media attention is that education's story doesn't break, it oozes. But that might be the best way to go. New Republic, August 19, 1967.