STATE & LOCAL GOVT
STATE & LOCAL GOVT POLS 207
Popular in Course
Popular in Political Science
This 8 page Study Guide was uploaded by Albert Cassin on Wednesday October 21, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to POLS 207 at Texas A&M University taught by Warren Dixon in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 27 views. For similar materials see /class/226252/pols-207-texas-a-m-university in Political Science at Texas A&M University.
Reviews for STATE & LOCAL GOVT
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/21/15
Ch 16 quotThe Politics of Educationquot see also Halter Government amp Politics of Texas Ch 1126368 I quotSchool Districtsquot amp quotIssues in School Politicsquot PART A gtwhat is the quotJ quot rationalequot for public J quot being quotuniversal free and 39 v quot two eaer examples of America39s commitment to public education some examples of what we expect of our schools today the shortrun effect of public 1quot including those for education on 39 growth rates among the states I The democratic rationale for public education being universal free amp compulsory was that If people were to be granted the right of su rage they must be educated to the task Two Early Examples of US Commitment to Education 7 Massachusetts colonial legislature required towns to provide for the education of children out of public funds 0 1787 Northwest Ordinance Congress o ered land grants for public schools in the new territories Examples of Sch ool Expectations 0 Resolve racial conflict improve selfimage of minorities inspire patriotism amp good citizenship o er various forms of recreation amp mass entertainment teach children to get along well with others eliminate unemployment etc Sh ortIhm Effect of Public Expenditures on Economic Growth Rates 0 There is little systematic evidence that statespending for education has any direct impact on economic growth rates in the states gteducational performance measurement distinguish with some examples measuring quotinputsquot from measurin quotout utsquot39 alternative wa s to measure the hi school quotdro out ratequot39 recent trends in rates gincluding differences among different ethnic gpoupsl quoteducational performancequot rankings of the states p 554 as noted in the Key Terms for Ch 1 how you measure quot J quot quot can affect states rankings in some cases eg Texas quite 39 quot quot y I Measuring Inputs measures of resources expended on education I Measuring Outputs measures of What if anything pupils learn I Alternate Measurements oingh School DropoutRates o EventDropout Persons who are recorded by the schools as having stopped attending during the 10m 11m amp 12th grades as a percentage of total attendance This gure is preferred by professional educators because it is very low about 4 percent 0 Status Dropouts Persons age 1824 who are not attending school amp have not graduated from high school as a percentage of all 1824 year olds The national status dropout rate is about 13 percent 0 TRENDS I Dropout rates are declining over time I 1824 year olds not attending is about 12 percent I Blacks about 14 percent I Hispanics about 32 percent I Rates higher in southern states amp states w large Hispanic populations I Mnking of States 0 Over 25 Years Old with a High School Diploma I Top 5 States 1 Wyoming 2 Alaska 3 Minnesota 4 Monta 5 Utah Bottom 5 States 50 Mississippi 49 Texas 48 Kentucky 47 California 46 Alabama 0 Based on SATScores Top 5 States I North Dakota 2 Iowa 3 Illinois 4 SouthDakota 5 Minnesota Bottom 5 States 46 Pennsylvania 47 Florida 48 Hawaii 49 Georgia 50 South Carolina Texas ranks 43d gtfr0m Key Terms for Ch 1 education pp 10 11 some states with more highlyeducated populations states with less Texas the actual of collegeeducated 39 quot in the states are given on p 578 identifv from p 554 two additional wavs to measure amp rank the states bV quot J quot 39 performancequot note how the ranking of Texas changes depending on which of these three ways is used to measure an quoteducatedquot population 1 I Percent of State Population Completing College I p 5 States Connecticut Maine Maryland New Jersey Colorado Bottom 5 States 46 Alabama 4 7 Louisiana 48 Kentucky 49 Arkansas 50 West Virginia Texas ranks 25 I Additional Methods of Measurement Population over 25 years ofage with a High School Diploma o SATScores a MIAMNF gttrends in SAT scores over past several decades and the conventional explanation for the recent rise in scores some states with higher average combined scores some states with lower ones Texas the basic problem with comparing states average SAT scores note eg the rank of Mississippi the quotracial biasquot argument from minoritv group leaders about quot J J39 J testingquot whether this testing be for 39 39 grade quot high school A quot college A 39 39 or the SAT the current view of the federal courts especially in the context of the data in Figure 162 I SATscores declined dramatically during the I 960s amp I 970s The decline ended in I 982 Increasing scores in recent years are attributed to the increasing emphasis in schools on testing for basic skills 0 Problem In some states more than 75 percent of graduating students take the test while in otherstates fewer than 20 percent do so I Minority Leaders believe standardized testing to be discriminatozy 0 Federal courts have declined to rule that testing requirements for promotion or graduation are discriminatory as long as su icient time amp opportunity have been provided for all students to prepare for examinations gteducati0nal reform the major conclusions of the 1960s Coleman Report including his later modi cations 39 changes in public school expenditures per pupil since 1980 in the context of Dye amp MacManus skeptical about the 39 quot 39 39 between public school spending and J quot 39 performance visuallV compare the states rankings on for example measures of educational performance such as high school i lomaquot rates amp SAT scores Rankin s on 554 and er u il s endin Rankin s on ud gtdescribe and assess brie y the public education reform movements of quotschoolbasedquot management quotmagnetquot and quotcharterquot schools the pros and cons of quotschool vouchersquot including the failed 1993 citizeninitiative effort in California Proposition I 74 identifv and describe the US C 39 39 issue with 39 quot 39 vouchers being paid to religious schools the 2002 Us Supreme Court decision on Cleveland Ohio39s quotScholarship Programquot I THE 1 960s COLEMAN REPORT 0 Demonstrated that pupil expenditures teachersalaries classroom size facilities amp materials were unrelated to student achievement Student success is more closely related to characteristics of the home environment than to those of the schools Coleman later demonstrated that student achievement levels are higher in schools in which there is a high expectation for achievement an orderly amp disciplined learning environment an emphasis on basic skills frequent monitoring of student progress amp teacherparent interaction and agreement on values amp norms I CHANGES IN SPENDING 0 Since I 980 per pupil spending has quadrupled yet SAT scores have improved only modestly I RANKING OF THE STATES 0 Over 25 Years Old with a High School Diploma I Top 5 States 00 6 Wyoming 7 Alaska 8 Minnesota 9 Montana 10 Utah Bottom 5 States 51 Mississippi 50 Texas 49 Kentucky 48 California 47 Alabama 0 Based on SATScores I Top 5 States 6 North Dakota 7 Iowa 8 Illinois 9 South Dakota 10 Minnesota Bottom 5 States 46 Pennsylvania 47 Florida 48 Hawaii 49 Georgia 50 South Carolina Texas ranks 43 I PUBLIC ED UCA TION REFORM o choolBased Management decentralized decision making in individual schools by principals teachers parents and community members rather than central o ices of school districts gt designed to give exibility to people closest to the students and to foster within the community a sense of ownership and responsibility for the quality of education gt principals teachers and parents at each school would decide about goals curriculum discipline and personne note it seldom works that way gt principals and teachers often feel it takes time away from teacheing or requires additional e orts to reach community consensus o Magnet amp Charter Schools Magnet School is a school that chooses to specialize in a certain area to improve quality and attract students I Frequently recommended for innercity areas in order to attract white pupils and reduce racial isolation Charter School a school operated with public funds by private community groups under a charter from a public school district I Receive waivers from most state and school district regulations to enable them to be more innovative in exchange for this flexibility they promise to show speci c student achievement V I They tax money from the state and school districtbased on their enrollment I THE DEBATE OVER SCHOOL VOUCHERS 0 Educational Vouchers given to parents to pay for their children s education at schools of their own choosing redeemable by the schools in public funds from the state and school district ProVouch er Argument Parental choice among schools would promote competition and enhance achievement Vouchers would inspire public and private schools to compete equally for students State education funds would flow to those schools that succeeded in enrolling more students Competition would encourage all schools to satisfy parental demands for excellence Racial or religious or ethnic discrimination wouldbe strictly prohibited in any private orpublic school receiving vouchers Opposition to Vouchers I Professional school administrators and state educational agencies argue that giving parents the right to move their children from school to school disrupts educational planning and threatens the viability of schools that are perceived as inferior It may lead to a stratification of schools into popular schools that attract the best students and less popular schools that are left with the task of educating students whose parents were unaware of or uninterested in their children s education Fear thatpublic education may be underminedby diverting public moneyfrom public to private schools V I Proposition 1 74 n 1993 California voters defeated a citizens initiative known as Proposition 174 Parental Choice in Education Professional educators teachers unions and liberal groups joined together to mount a highly publicized campaign to defeat the measure gt Proposition 174 promised to empower parents by granting each schoolchild a scholarship voucher e ual to about onehalfofthe average amount ofstate and local government aidperpupil in California I VO UCHERS AS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 0 Vouchers paid to religious schools by states raised the issue of whether or not these payments violated the First Amendment s prohibition against the establishment of religion The Court had approved of state and federal scholarships granted directly to students who then used them to enroll in religious colleges and universities Ohio initiated a Scholarship Program that provided tuition aid to certain students in the Cleveland City School District who could use this aid to attend either public or private or religious schools of their parent s choosing opponents challenged the program in federal court arguing that it advanced a religious mission in violation of the No Establishment Clause of the FirstAmendment gt Over 90 percent of the participants in the scholarship program were enrolled in religiously a iliated schools gt In 2002 the US Supreme Court held in a 54 decision that the program did not violate the Constitution I Reasoned that the program was neutral with respect to religion and provided assistance directly to citizens who in turn directed this aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own independent private choices The incidental advancement of a religious mission is reasonably attributed to the individual recipients not the government whose role ends with the distribution ofbene ts V or amzm n 563 66 the rima res ons1b111t o u 1c e with39 from pp 56366 describe how the governing of public education is typically organized in the stateS39 review pp 56870 on the governing of local schools then identifv amp describe a the maior quotplaversquot in local school governing and b the tension between quotprofessionalquot educators and school boardS39 nally assess how re ective school boards are oftheir quot 39 desires and a niratinn quot I The responsibility for public education is rmly in the hands of state governments I Public Education Organization in the States 0 The fty state governments by means of enabling legislation establish local school districts and endow them with the authority to operate public schools 0 There are around 13500 local school districts governed by 80 000 school board members who are chosen usually by proper election 0 State laws authorize these boards to levy and collect taxes borrow money engage in school construction hire instructional personnel amp make certain determinations about local school policy 0 ONLY HA WAII governs its schools centrally from the state capital I Governing of Local Schools 0 Major Players in Local School Governing Local Control Elected School Board Superintendent I Tension Between Professional Educators amp School Boards 0 The struggle for power over the schools between interested citizens school board members and professional educators has now beenjoined by still anotherpowerfulforce the nation s teacher s unions Unions I National Education Association NEA I American Federation ofTeachers AFT I American Federation of LaborCongress of Industrial Organizations AFLCIO I Both AFT amp NEA chapters have shut down schools to force concessions by superintendents board members and taxpayersinot only in salaries and bene ts but also in pupilteacher ratios classroom conditions school discipline and other matters 0 As teachers unions grow stronger the traditional question of whether citizens or professional administrators should run the schools will be made more complex What role should teachers unions have in determining educationalpolicy I Are School Boards Re ective of their Constituents Desires amp Aspirations 0 Like most decision makers the nation s 80 000 school board members are unrepresentative of their constituents in their socioeconomic background 0 1 1 1 come 39 p p 39 1 from 1 39 1families many members have relatives in education usually their spouse 0 0 Many members report that they were rst prompted to run for the school board by friends already on the board this suggests a perpetuation of similar kinds of people on the school boards 0 Most school board elections are nonpartisan 0 Many members originally came to the board as appointees to replace individuals who left the board with unexpired terms 0 Incumbents are rarely defeated in reelection A 1 the source ofmost litigation alternative underlving inte quot ofthe quotno 39 quot 39 quot clause39 summarize the basic arguments in support of and opposition to public aid to religious schools while you do not need to know the names of the various cases notice the dif culty the Supreme Court has in separating quotpermissiblequot from quotimpermissiblequot forms of governmental assistance in this context identify the threepart quotLemon testquot Lemon v Kurtzman 1971 to assess the quot quot quot ofa law affecting religious activitv the historical practice and current constitutional status of prayer and Biblereading in public schools I Two Guarantees of Religious Freedom in the First Amendment 0 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and 0 Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof The Source of Most Litigation 0 Most ofthe debate over religion in the public schools centers on the No Establishment Clause ofthe First Amendment rather than the Free Exercise Clause Alternative 1 1 1 39 a 39 r 39 ofthe No F1 1 139 1 quotClause 0 One interpretation holds that that it does not prevent government from aiding religious schools or encouraging religious beliefs in the public schools so long as it does not discriminate against any particular religion 0 Another interpretation It creates a wall of separation between church and state in America which prevents government from directly aiding religious schools or encouraging religious beliefs in any way Support amp Opposition to Public Aid for Religious Schools 0 Su ort orPublic Aid to Reli ious Schools Catholic Church fought for interpretation of the No Establishment Clause that would permit the government to aid religious schools I Catholic parents right to send child to Catholic school they are taxpayers they expect some tax monies to go to the aid of church schools To do otherwise Discrimination Refer to several cases decided by the Supreme Court appear in a limited fashion support churchschools I Cochran v Board ofEducation I930 aidbene ted children rather than the church I Everson v Board ofEducation I947 upheld school bus servicefor safety ofchildren I Mueller v Allen 1983 upheld state income tax deduction for educational expenses These schools render a valuable public service by instructing millions of children Church property has always been exempt from taxation Contributions are deductable from state income taxes Chaplains are provided in the armed forces as well as in the Congress of the United States 0 pposition to Public Aid to Religious Schools I Argue that free public schools are available to all children regardless of religious denominations Q If religious parents don t like the public school they should expect to pay for the establishment amp operation of religious denomination It is unfair to compel taxpayers to support religion directly or indirectly Substantial amount of public education funds diverted to church schools would weaken public schools Supreme Court has voiced opinion that the No Establishment Clause should constitute a wall of separation between church amp state The Lemon Test 0 Supreme Court set fourth a threepart Lemon Test for determining whether a particular state law constitutes establishment of religion and thus violates the FirstAmendment 0 To be Constitutional a law a ecting religious activity I Must have a secular purpose I As its primary e ect must neither advance nor inhibit religion I Must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion The Historical Practice amp the Current Constitutional Status of Prayer amp Bible Reading in Public Schools 0 Practice of opening the school day with prayer and Biblereadings was once widespread in American schools I Usually was a protestant rendition of the Lord s Prayer I Bible reading was from the King James version I New York State Board ofRegents substituted a nondenominational prayer which it requiredto be said aloud in each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day39 I Almighty God we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee and we beg Ihy blessings upon us our parents our teachers and our country State e orts to encourage voluntary prayer in public schools have also been struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the delivery ofan invocation atpublic high schoolfootball games over the school s public address system was an 39 39 1 t t r quot1 1 0 re igion O O PART B the federal role in education and Ala ghild e genind Ne5 pp 56063 gtfederal role in education identify and describe brie y each of the federal government39s major initiatives in public education between 1787 and 195839 describe the major purpose of the 1965 Elementaer and Secondarp Education Act ESEA the major change in this progpam in 1981 the educational purpose of Head Start and the effect if anv of these federal programs on student achievement see also Table 161 for data on the changing composition by level of government of public funds for public education Federal Government s Major Initiatives in Public Education 1 7871958 0 Northwest Ordinance of I 787 I Land grants for public schools in new territories o 1862 Morrill Land GrantAct I Provided grants of federal land to each state for the 1 139 1 and mechanical arts I Became known as LandGrant Colleges ofcolleges 39 139 39 in g 39 1 1 r a o I 867 Congress Establishment of US O ice of Education I Became the Dept ofEducation in 1979 o SmithHughesAct of1917 I Set up the rst program of federal grantsinaid to promote vocational education I Enabled schools to provide training in agriculture home economics trades amp industries 0 National School Lunch ampMilkPrograms 1946 I Federal grants and commodity donations are made for nonpro t lunches amp milk served in public amp private sc ools 0 Federal ImpactedAreas Aid Program I 950 I Federal aid is authorized in federally impacted areas ofthe nation 0 National Defense Education Act NDEA of1958 I In response to the Soviet Union s success in launching Sputnik Congress became concerned that the American educational system might notbe keeping abreast of advances made in other nations particularly in science and technolo Congress provided nancial aid to states and public school districts to improve instruction in science mathematics and foreign languages Major Purpose of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESEA 0 First large breakthrough in federal aid to education 0 Was not a general aidtoeducation program 0 The Education Consolidation amp ImprovementAct of 981 I Consolidated ESEA and related education programs into a single Title I block grant allowing the states greater discretion in how federal funds can be spent for compensatory education I Remains the largest federal aidtoeducation program accounting for overhalf of all federal elementary and secondary education spending I Purpose of H ead Start 0 To provide special preschool preparation to disadvantaged children before they enter kindergarten or rst grade gtNo Child Left Behind NCLB describe the major quottestingquot and quotreportingquot provisions of NCLB the consequences for school districts who do not make quotadequate yearly progress AYP parental options in quotfailingquot schools role of states in designing and administering these reguired tests in this context describe brie V the National A vwmmpm of F 39 Progress NAEP tests Controversv over NCLB 39 39 quot of 39 quot p 39 39 defense of NCLB to NCLB39 ar uments made in I Major Testing amp Reporting Provisions of No Child Left Behind 0 Relies on testing as a means to improve performance ofAmerica s elementary and secondary schools 0 Accountability frequiring states to establish standards in reading amp mathematics and undertaking to test annually all students grades 38 I To ensure that every child can read by the end of third grade 0 Reporting I Test results and school progress toward pro ciency goals are published including results broken out by poverty race ethnicity disability and limitedEnglish pro ciency in order to ensure that no group is left behind Consequ ences for Districts who Fail to Make Adequate Yearly Progress AYP School districts failing to make AYP toward statewide pro ciency goals face corrective action and restructuring asures designed to improve their performance Parental Options in Failing Schools 0 Parents whose children attend schools who fail to make AYP are given the opportunity to send their children to another public school or a public charter school within the school district The school district is required to pay for transportation to the new school amp use Title I federal funds to implement school choice and supplemental educational services to the students I No pupil will be trapped in afailing school I Provides incentive for lowperforming schools to improve Role of States in Designing and Administering these Required Tests 0 Flexibility I The Act promises the states exibility in accountability I It allows the states themselves to design and administer the tests and decide what constitutes low performance and adequate yearly progress I States are encouraged to use Title I federal funds to improve lowperforming schools No Child Left Behind amp Controversy Around It 0 The National Education Association the powerful teachers union they contend that the NCLB is fundamentally awed Professional educators believe that the emphasis on testing for basic skills leads to narrow testtaking education 0 rather than comprehensive preparation for life 0 Professional Educators also contend that measures of progress or lack of it should notbe used to penalize schools or teachers 0 Opposition to testing has also arisen from minority group leaders who charge that the tests are racially biased I Average black student scores are frequently lower than average white student scores I Denying a disproportionate number of black studean advancement because of the school s failure to teach basics is viewed as a form of discrimination 0 IN DEFENSE OF NCLB I Proponents also contend that disparities between whites and minorities in test scores have been narrowing as teachers concentrate more on instruction in basic skills I Proponents ofNCLB argue that testing for basic skills has improved student performance in recent years PART c battle over school nances see p 565 gamp accompanying text on pp 566 68 for the rankings of the states bv their per pupil public school expenditures note the nationwide average per pupil expenditurea some high spending statesz some lower s endin ones Tean39 variables that stron l correlate with ie quotex lainquot this inter state variation review again amp carefullv Table 16 1 on p 560 for the sources of public funds for public education I FINANCING PUBLIC SCHOOLS State Rankings Per Pupil Spending Top 5 States Spending the Most Per Pupil 1 New Jersey 2 New York 3 Connecticut 4 Vermont 5 Maine Bottom 5 States Spending the Least Per Pupil 46 Mississippi 4 7 Oklahoma 48 Arkansas 49 Arizona 50 Utah Texas ranks 41 I School Finances 0 8 800 peryear is spent on the public education ofeach child I Variation of Sch ool Finances Among the States 0 In 2005 for example public school expendituresfor each pupil rangedfrom 5216 in Utah to 14117 in New Jersey 0 Economic resources are the principal determinant of a state s willingness and ability to provide educational O rvzc I Sources of Funds for Public Education in the United States 0 Percentage of Public Educational Revenues by source I 1980 I Federal 92 State 491 Local 41 7 I 1985 I Federal 67 State 490 Local 443 I 1990 I Federal 63 State 483 Local 454 I 1995 I Federal 69 State 47 6 Local 454 I 2000 I Federal 71 State 498 Local 431 I 2005 I Federal 86 State 480 Local 434
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'