Discussion 1 Week 2

Discussion 1 week 2
A. Discussion 1 – Policy-making in the Federal System (e.g., education policy):
DQ1 has four parts. Be sure to respond to each part. Use information from assigned resources in both your main post and your peer responses. While reading, use the table below to help you organize information from your sources in relation to different parts of the DQ. Keep track of where you find information so that you can correctly cite sources in your posts.
Recommendation: Print this table and use it while reading the assignments.
4 Parts of DQ1
Related Learning Resources (abbreviations)
Learning Tips
Briefly summarize the national government's education policies.
Wong, Fed & NCLB, pp175-179
Klein, Obama stands firm on educ
Focus on “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top” (2-3 sentences).
Explain pros/cons in debate about these policies.
Gabriel, GOP aims at education
Hettleman, Expand “No Child”
Hoff, New vision for US role
Lips, Charting a course
Jeffrey, Huckabee’s educ stance
Will, Getting past NCLB
Emphasize pros and cons that are related to policy effectiveness.
Explain at least 1 pro and 1 con.
Evaluate policy effectiveness to improve quality of elementary and secondary education. Justify your view by defining effectiveness and how to measure it.
Hoff, New vision for US role
Riley, Turning page on equity
Wong, Fed & NCLB, pp180-185
What are educational goals of policy?
How decide if fed educ policy achieves these goals (what method, measures)?
Does fed educ policy achieve goals?
Use own ideas or ideas of others.
Evaluate policy consistency with constitutional framework of federalism. Justify your view by explaining federalism framework and why ed policy is or is not consistent with that framework.
Levin-Waldman, Chap 3
Quick Study of Amer Fed [Video]
Gessing, Fed key to future
Greenblat, Dependent states
Klein, House panel floats themes
What is right balance between national, state and local government powers?
Is fed educ policy within these limits?
Use own ideas or ideas of others.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cep-dc.org%2Fcfcontent_file.cfm%3FAttachment%3DJennings_Paper_GetTheFedsOutOfEducation_041311.pdf&ei=PSXnU4GdIMOejALT7oCQBQ&usg=AFQjCNGJCcwEY5POIaUO4jzRcFlcLW-ESw&sig2=3e8M1NGUOqixAf2Bo9UAqw

Virtually every study of the federal role in American education begins with the qualifying statement: education in the United States is chiefly a matter of state and local responsibility. This statement is certainly true . . . as far as it goes. Education is a state and local responsibility, both legally (every state constitution guarantees its citizens’ right to education, while the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention education at all) and financially (state and local expenditures cover approximately 92 percent of school costs on average, while the federal budget covers only 8 percent—though, in some large urban districts, federal aid covers as much as 30 or 40 percent of local school costs). Yet, even if public education is chiefly a matter of state and local responsibility, the federal role in American schools has grown exponentially in the period since the mid-twentieth century, and state-federal interactions in the realm of education policy have become increasingly complex as a result.