Final Exam Pols 2212 Instructions: Take-Home Open Book

Final Exam Pols 2212instructions This Is A Take Home Open Book Exam C

Final Exam Pols 2212instructions This Is A Take Home Open Book Exam C

FINAL EXAM POLS 2212 INSTRUCTIONS This is a take-home, open-book exam consisting of essay questions. Please note the following instructions: You are only required to answer FOUR of the essay questions listed below. Each essay should be roughly 2 paragraphs in length. This, however, is only a guideline, as I grade on content rather than length. Essays should be double spaced with 12-inch fonts and 1-inch page margins. All sources must be cited and formatted based on your choice of MLA, APA, or Chicago formats. All essays must be saved in a single file and uploaded to the appropriate midterm dropbox. All submissions will be processed through D2L’s plagiarism detection software.

GRADING INFORMATION

These essays will be graded in a similar manner as the written assignments. An excellent essay will demonstrate the following characteristics:

- The essay thoroughly addresses all components of the question.

- The essay is focused on the topic of the question and contains few to no tangential discussions.

- The essay contains a smooth and logical progression of explanations and arguments.

- The overall readability of the essay is not diminished by mistakes of spelling or grammar.

Essay Questions

1. Explain the division of responsibilities between federal and state levels in regards to standardized testing under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). What are some potential problems with this system?

2. Identify and explain at least two significant differences between Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Why is TANF considered to be better for states?

3. Explain the general characteristics of the spoils system and merit system of public employment. What are some potential problems with merit-based systems of hiring and promoting public employees?

4. Explain the significance of Federal drug sentencing laws (e.g., the Sentencing Act of 1984) for contemporary issues of high incarceration rates. Identify and explain at least two examples of criminal justice reforms (at the state or federal level) intended to deal with this issue.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The structure of public administration and policy implementation in the United States involves complex interactions between federal and state governments, particularly in areas like education and criminal justice. The division of responsibilities and the impact of specific legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), as well as federal drug sentencing laws, highlight ongoing debates about efficiency, equity, and effectiveness in governance. This paper addresses four critical questions concerning these aspects, exploring accountability in education, welfare policy evolution, employment systems in public service, and reforms aimed at reducing incarceration rates.

Division of Responsibilities in Education under NCLB

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 drastically reshaped the federal role in education policy, primarily focusing on accountability and standardized testing. Under NCLB, the federal government mandates specific performance measures that states must implement, primarily through standardized assessments to evaluate school performance and student achievement. States are responsible for designing their testing programs, but they must adhere to federal guidelines and report their progress to the federal Department of Education. This creates a dual-layered system where the federal government sets overarching goals and standards, while states are entrusted with executing testing procedures and addressing identified deficiencies.

However, this division presents several problems. First, it can lead to inconsistencies in testing standards, as states have varying capacities and resources to implement federal mandates effectively. Some argue that reliance on standardized tests narrows the curriculum, fostering "teaching to the test" rather than promoting comprehensive education. Additionally, conflicts may arise over accountability measures; federal sanctions may penalize schools unfairly if testing conditions are not equitable across states. Moreover, the emphasis on testing may neglect other crucial areas of student development, such as arts or social-emotional learning, which are not as easily measured.

Differences Between AFDC and TANF; Why TANF Is Beneficial for States

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) are both welfare programs targeting low-income families, but they differ significantly in their structure and policy approach. AFDC, established in 1935 and phased out in 1996, was a federally funded, state-administered entitlement program that offered cash assistance to eligible families without strict work requirements. It was characterized by its open-ended nature, providing benefits based on need, with few restrictions on how recipients could use the funds.

In contrast, TANF, enacted under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, shifted the emphasis from entitlement toTemporary assistance with a focus on work requirements, time-limited benefits, and state flexibility. TANF provides block grants to states, giving them greater discretion in designing welfare programs tailored to local needs. This flexibility is considered advantageous for states because it allows them to implement innovative policies, integrate welfare programs with job training, and better control spending.

Moreover, TANF is viewed as more sustainable because it imposes time limits on aid—typically five years—and encourages employment, reducing long-term dependence on welfare. It also enables states to impose stricter eligibility and work requirements, fostering self-sufficiency among recipients, thus aligning welfare policies with broader goals of labor force participation and economic independence.

The Spoils System and Merit System of Public Employment; Potential Problems

The spoils system, historically prevalent in the 19th century, is characterized by the awarding of government jobs based on political loyalty rather than merit. Elected officials often appointed supporters, which fostered patronage and political loyalty but frequently compromised competence and efficiency. This system often led to corrupt practices and inefficiencies, as appointments were motivated more by political connections than qualifications.

In contrast, the merit system emphasizes hiring and promoting public employees based on qualifications, competence, and performance. This approach aims to create a professional, capable bureaucracy that can effectively implement policies. The merit system relies on civil service exams and performance evaluations to ensure fair and competent staffing, thus promoting efficiency and fairness.

However, merit-based systems are not without challenges. One major problem is that they can contribute to bureaucratic rigidity, limiting flexibility and innovation. The reliance on exams and standardized criteria may also perpetuate inequalities if the testing process favors certain socioeconomic or cultural groups. Additionally, political pressures can still influence hiring and promotion decisions, especially in politically charged environments, undermining the integrity of merit principles.

Federal Drug Laws and Criminal Justice Reform

Federal drug sentencing laws, such as those embedded in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, have played a pivotal role in contemporary criminal justice issues, particularly concerning high incarceration rates. The 1984 law mandated mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, emphasizing punishment over rehabilitation. This approach contributed significantly to the dramatic rise in the prison population, disproportionately affecting minority communities and raising concerns over racial disparities and social justice.

In response to these issues, criminal justice reforms have emerged at both state and federal levels. One notable example is the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine offenses, addressing some racial disproportionate impacts of prior laws. Another example is the First Step Act of 2018, which introduced sentencing reforms aimed at reducing mandatory minimum sentences for certain non-violent offenses and improving prison rehabilitation programs. These reforms seek to strike a balance between maintaining public safety and addressing the social injustices associated with overly harsh sentencing laws.

Efforts such as community-based diversion programs further complement reforms by emphasizing treatment and prevention over incarceration. The push for decarceration and reform of drug sentencing laws demonstrates a shift towards more equitable and rehabilitative approaches in criminal justice, reflecting broader societal acknowledgment of both the economic and social costs of mass incarceration.

Conclusion

The analysis of these legislative and administrative frameworks reveals ongoing challenges and opportunities within American governance. The division of educational responsibilities under NCLB underscores the difficulties in balancing federal oversight with state implementation. Welfare reforms through TANF have aimed to foster independence and efficiency, while the evolution from the spoils system to merit-based employment reflects efforts to improve administrative competence. Meanwhile, reforming federal drug laws exemplifies the ongoing struggle to create a more just and effective criminal justice system. Addressing these issues requires continual reassessment and adaptation to ensure policies serve both societal needs and principles of fairness.

References

1. Adams, J. (2010). "The Evolution of Welfare Policy: From AFDC to TANF." Journal of Public Policy, 12(3), 215-232.
2. Brown, M. (2015). "Educational Accountability and Federalism: The Case of NCLB." Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(7), 45-68.
3. Kettl, D. F. (2015). Politics of the Administrative Process. CQ Press.
4. Lowi, T. J., Ginsberg, B., Shepsle, K. A., & Ansolabehere, S. (2017). American Government: Power and Purpose. W. W. Norton & Company.
5. Miller, S. (2014). "Merit and Patronage in Civil Service Reform." Public Administration Review, 74(2), 256-267.
6. Reese, S. (2019). "Criminal Justice Reform and Mass Incarceration." Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15, 65-85.
7. Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
8. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-220.
9. The First Step Act of 2018, Pub.L. 115-391.
10. Wilson, W. J. (2012). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. University of Chicago Press.