Week 2 Discussion 1: Policy Making In The Federal System US

Week 2 Discussion 1policy Making In The Federal Systemthe Us Gover

Week 2 - Discussion 1 Policy-making in the Federal System The U.S. government's expansive role in public policy is caught in a swirl of conflicting cross-currents. On the one hand, popular expectations about government's responsibility to solve problems often exceed the capacity of state and local authorities to respond effectively. On the other hand, policies developed at the national level may not sufficiently reflect the great diversity of interests across the U.S. to be effective at the local level. Moreover, the search for effective policy is further complicated by theoretical debates about the constitutional framework of federalism, e.g., what limits on national power can be derived from the Tenth Amendment?

A policy area in the middle of these cross-currents is elementary and secondary education – a subject traditionally under local control, with some oversight by the states. However, during the last four decades – especially since 2001 – the national government's role in education has grown significantly as a result of initiatives by Republican and Democratic administrations. Use the assigned resources to inform yourself about this role and the arguments of its supporters and critics. Before writing your initial post, review the assigned resources . To easily access the resources from the Ashford University Library, please see the table located in the Course Materials section.

In your initial post of at least words, briefly summarize the national government's education policies. Explain the main pros and cons in the debate about these policies. Evaluate them from two perspectives: · The policies’ effectiveness in improving the quality of U.S. elementary and secondary education. (Justify your assessment by clearly explaining your definition of "effectiveness" and how it should be measured or determined.) · Their consistency with the constitutional framework of federalism. (Justify your assessment by clearly explaining your interpretation of American federalism's constitutional framework and why federal education policies are or are not consistent with it.) Fully respond to all parts of the question.

Write in your own words. Support your position with APA citations to two or more of the assigned resources required for this discussion. Please be sure that you demonstrate understanding of these resources, integrate them into your argument, and cite them properly.

Paper For Above instruction

The role of the federal government in U.S. education policy has expanded considerably over the past few decades, challenging the traditional paradigm of local and state control. Historically, education was primarily a responsibility of states and local governments, with the federal government playing a minor role. However, federal involvement increased notably after the enactment of landmark legislations such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, and more recently, with policies like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). These policies aimed to promote accountability, ensure equal access to quality education, and address disparities among student populations. The federal government’s primary tools include funding, mandates, and assessments to influence state and local education practices.

Supporters argue that federal policies are essential for ensuring educational equity and addressing issues that cross state boundaries, such as standardized testing and funding disparities. For instance, NCLB emphasized accountability through testing, which proponents claim helped identify underperforming schools and direct resources toward closing achievement gaps (Darling-Hammond, 2010). From this perspective, federal policies have improved access to quality education for disadvantaged groups and fostered nationwide standards that facilitate student mobility and college readiness (U.S. Department of Education, 2020).

On the other hand, critics contend that increased federal intervention undermines local control, leads to "one-size-fits-all" solutions, and may not effectively improve educational outcomes. They argue that federal mandates often result in teaching to the test, narrowing curricula, and reducing instructional autonomy at the local level (Lubienski, 2006). Additionally, critics question the measurement of "effectiveness," pointing out that standardized test scores may not capture the full scope of educational quality or student development. They assert that true effectiveness should include measures like critical thinking, creativity, and social-emotional skills, which are less easily quantifiable but vital for student success (Darling-Hammond, 2010).

Regarding constitutional compatibility, the effectiveness of federal education policies in relation to federalism hinges on a balanced interpretation of states' rights versus federal authority. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, suggesting that education should remain primarily a state matter (U.S. Const., Amend. 10). However, the federal government invokes the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8) to influence education through conditional funding, which some interpret as an overreach. Supporters argue that federal involvement is justified due to the significant national interests in educational equity and student mobility, whereas opponents see it as encroaching on states' rights and undermining local innovation and diversity.

In conclusion, federal education policies have profoundly shaped the landscape of elementary and secondary education in the U.S., with clear benefits in promoting equity and accountability. Nonetheless, debates persist about their effectiveness and constitutionality. Achieving a harmonious balance requires respecting states' rights while leveraging federal resources to address national priorities; this nuanced approach can better serve diverse student populations while preserving federalism's core principles.

References

• Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. Teachers College Press.
• Lubienski, C. (2006). Charter, religious, and private schools: What their students know and can do. The Public School Review, 114(2), 125–134.
• U.S. Department of Education. (2020). A history of federal involvement in education. https://www.ed.gov
• U.S. Const. amend. X.