Discussion question: Unlike virtually all Western countries, the United States has decentralized its education policy to local school districts, with little if any formal curriculum requirements emanating from Washington. Discuss the degree to which the localization of education public policymaking in the United States has either enhanced or detracted from the ability of educators to train students for the competitive job market. What obstacles, if any, does the creation of public policy at the local level in education pose to sound national education policy? Respond to at least two of your classmates’ postings. Welcome to Week Four – PPA 497 INSTRUCTOR GUIDANCE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) EDUCATION My Passion . . . Education This week I opted to focus my lecture on a personal passion of mine, education. As I read through your discussion answers and responses to your peers, many of you expressed the same sentiment regarding our country’s responsibility to make education a priority and implement viable solutions. In my research I came across articles that discussed the impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) upon educators and students; the sentiment was eerily similar, NCLB has done more harm than good. Lastly, our readings take us to another emotionally charged topic, health care reform. How much do you know about the health care reform act? Have you performed due diligence by researching the act or have you based your opinions upon what you have been told by media outlets? Be wary of what you have been told; an act of this magnitude that affects so many Americans warrants research and a deeper understanding. Throughout the last few weeks we have been discussing who influences the creation of public policies. NCLB is a perfect example of presidential influence upon public policy formation. President Bush’s policy tactics – advocating greater public school accountability and using a modified school choice mechanism for students in “failing” schools. President Bush’s 2001 education initiative, “Let No Child Be Left Behind” is one of the most sweeping reforms on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since its inception in 1965. (Simon, 2010, p. 224) President Obama, as part of his policy agenda, targets NCLB with the hopes of reforming this policy. “President Obama’s policies have concentrated on trying NCLB & CLASS SIZE CLASS SIZE/NCLB An argument of NCLB is to promote smaller class sizes in the failing schools in an effort to promote a better learning environment. However, studies have shown that smaller class sizes may not be the answer to the problems of failing schools. “Rather than a “one size fits all” approach, research suggests that targeted class size reductions – based on need or class subject area – would be a more affordable solution with the potential for greater impact,” (Simon, 2010, p. 231). So let us ask the question, if smaller class sizes, whether in a general classroom setting or subject based, are the ideal per NCLB, what about the non-failing schools that are forced to take on students as part of the school of choice option under NCLB? EDUCATING TODAY’S CHILD ACCOUNTABILITY What is accountability? Who should be held accountable? “NCLB requires that schools be accountable to parents and schoolchildren by developing plans to monitor and improve educational outcomes,” (Simon, 2010, p. 226). NCLB, in my opinion, prevents schools from fulfilling their duties of education children. Teachers are held accountable for student performance; teaching subjects that are tested and ignoring others. “In fact, because of its misguided reliance on “one size fits all” testing, labeling and sanctioning schools, it has undermined many education efforts. Many schools, particularly those serving low-income students, have become little more than testpreparation programs,” (Strauss, 2012, para. 2). Teacher accountability; why are teachers solely accountable for the education of children? As parents, when did we Many factors come into play when educating a child. What legislators fail to take into account is the social-economic make up of the child. What if the child lives within the poverty threshold? What if the child lives within a poorer school district that cannot afford to meet the stringent guidelines of NCLB? What if the child comes from a family where their guardians are not educated, not involved or not present? NCLB is blind to a child’s home life, economic wellbeing and overall parent involvement. No Child Left Behind required all schools to bring all students to high levels of achievement but took no note of the challenges that disadvantaged students face, (para. 7). As we are now seeing, requiring all schools to meet the same high standards for all students, regardless of family background, will inevitably lead either What about the Parents? So what about the parents? Our nation is seeing, with the shift in the economy, school volunteer bases are diminishing due to parents returning to work after being stay-at-home parents for many years. However, being a working parent should not make anyone less accountable for their child’s education. So what about the parents? A few states are moving towards punishing parents for their lack of involvement in their child’s education. For example, Florida introduced a bill to require school administrators to grade parents’ involvement; Indiana wants to require parents to participate for a specified number of hours per semester; Maryland jails parents for truancy; Alaska fines parents for absences; and California passed a law that allows administrators to prosecute, fine and jail parents, (Strauss, 2011). Will punishing parents solve our education problems? Probably not. Is it a start in attempting to address an epidemic that affects every community in our country? Maybe. An article I came across in The Washington Post suggested positive reinforcement, much like the positive behavior awards teachers attempt in the classroom, except apply them to involved parents. Sure hold parents accountable for not providing the needed support for their child’s education, but also recognize those parents that do participate and nurture their child. Then what should lawmakers consider in the reworking of NCLB? “Perhaps we should consider mandatory parenting classes, less substantial child tax credits, and community service hours for those whose children commit crimes or drop out of school due to behavior and/or academic problems,” (Strauss, 2011, para. 15). Research has shown that by assisting parents, not punishing them, and addressing the social-economic needs of the child/family, does improve educational performance. “Researchers at the Prevention Research Center in Arizona studied the longterm effectiveness of parenting programs and found considerable evidence that such interventions positively impact children’s health and development demonstrated from one to 20 years after the program was delivered,” (Strauss, 2011, para. 15). In short, NCLB is not perfect by any means, evident by the results or lack thereof during its 10 years of implementation. Teachers see students for a short span of time, how can they be held accountable for student performance when a child’s home life may be THE FLUIDITY OF THE EDUCATION POLICY During the Obama Administration, the federal government took a step back from NCLB and utilizing a different approach to education. The Department of Education formulated the Common Core Standards of education. While the learning standards in English and math were not developed by the Obama administration, the Education Department made the adoption of new college and career-ready standards a key component of applying for the grant money. States did not have to adopt, but they knew that doing so would help their cause. Obama did not create the Core; he fast-tracked its adoption. The Common Core standards were developed by governors and state school superintendents and adopted at the state level. They were not created by the Obama administration or forced on states. Indeed, several states chose not to make the switch. That said, President Obama did use federal dollars, through the Race to the Top program, to encourage states to adopt new, more rigorous standards. And, in the throes of a downturn, that extra school money was a powerful enticement. Here is an excerpt from the Common Core Standards website regarding the policy: The Common Core is a set of highquality academic standards in mathematics and English language arts/literacy (ELA). These learning goals outline what a student should know and be able to do at the end of each grade. The standards were created to ensure that all students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life, regardless of where they live. Fortyfour states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) have voluntarily adopted and are moving forward with the Common Core. (Common Core State Standards Initiative) THE FLUIDITY OF THE EDUCATION POLICY Additionally, within President Obama’s policy agenda, he has initiated the “Race to the Top” campaign for education reform to work in conjunction with the Common Core Standards. The initiative has spent $4 billion dollars in the development of educational plans for students within K-12. While this initiative leaves the decision making up to the states in regards to education, it does present federal backing with funding. Today, the Common Core standards, or something very like them, are still used by the vast majority of states, though President Trump has stated that his education policy would eliminate these standards. The Obama administration also used federal dollars to entice states to create or expand their pre-K offerings. In 2014, the administration's Preschool Development Grants spread more than $200 million across 18 states, expanding access to high-quality preschool to 33,000 children. Finally, the Race to the Top initiative also paved the way for other education related changes such as: teacher evaluations, increased graduation rates, zero tolerance discipline policies, the promotion of higher education and the attempt to tame student debt. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S EDUCATION Early in his presidency, Trump approved congressional resolutions POLICY rules for the Every Student that overturned Obama-era accountability Succeeds Act and a separate set of rules governing teacher preparation. However, there has been little to no progress on revamping other major education programs in Congress, whether they’re Trump priorities or otherwise:  Lawmakers have repeatedly rejected a push by Trump and U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to create new federally funded school choice initiatives, such as a $1 billion public school choice program using Title I aid typically directed at low-income students.  Similarly, Congress hasn’t shown an interest in making dramatic cuts to the U.S. Department of Education like Trump and DeVos have called for in two education budget proposals so far.  Work on overhauling the Higher Education Act has stalled, even though a GOP-backed higher education bill awaits action by the full House. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., made an HEA overhaul a top priority at the start of the 115th Congress, but to no avail so far.  There’s been no tangible progress on revamping laws like the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and the Head Start Act that are long overdue for reauthorization. (Ujifusa, 2018, para. 812) The report urges partnerships between schools, districts, states and law enforcement for the training and arming of school personnel. Although senior White House officials stressed that the report does not make the recommendation to arm teachers, it says that highly trained school personnel that have access to guns would be beneficial to school safety. The report does not recommend that federal funds be used to train school personnel. Education Secretary DeVos chairs the commission, which includes the Justice Department, Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security. According to Secretary DeVos, the commission explored a range of issues including mental health treatment, social and emotional learning, the impact of armed school resource officers on safety, the impact of violent entertainment on children's development. The report also states that schools should have better access to health services, recommending that states find innovative ways to fund onsite practitioners. It also recommends that states implement substantial PRESIDENT TRUMP’S EDUCATION Unfortunately, my children, ages 18 and POLICY 16 are part of the school shooting generation. With school shootings making headlines across the country and across the world; discussions that have followed after the tragedy in Parkland, Florida have gone beyond gun control but to scaling back Obama-era school discipline policies. The Department of Education is in the position to rescind Obama-era policies that sought to ensure minority students are not unfairly disciplined in schools, an effort the Trump administration believes will alleviate schoolrelated violence. In response to the massacre in Parkland, Florida, President Trump formed a school safety commission aimed to evaluate and provide recommendations about how to keep students safe in school. Since the commission convened in the aftermath of school shootings, observers anticipated that the focus would be on guns, however, the commission's report took a look at several policies from mental health issues to the impact of violent entertainment on children's development, according to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. National Healthcare Systems The issue of government supported health care (national health care system) has been prevalent for decades; Prussia had the first national system in 1854; Germany in 1883; Britain in 1911; United States starting in 1912, then again in the 1920s, 1930s, 1960, 1965, 1972 and 2003, (Simon, 2010, p. 191). A national health care system is not a new phenomenon within our country, the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by the president in March 2010 provides health reform for all citizens. “The Affordable Health Care Act gives citizens better health security by putting in place comprehensive health insurance reforms that hold insurance companies accountable, lower health care costs, guarantees more choice, and enhance quality of care for all Americans,” (WhiteHouse.gov, n.d.) Currently, we have health policies for the elderly (Medicare) and for the indigent or poor (Medicaid). Why not have health policies for those with preexisting conditions, children, protecting individuals who get sick and their insurance opt to end their coverage, early retirees that do not qualify for Medicare and college students or adults age 26 and under? I encourage you, as you are reading through the material to supplement your knowledge about the Affordable Health Care Act with research from a variety of sources. HEALTH CARE REFORM On March 24, 2010 President Obama signed into law the Health Care Reform Bill. It does not go without saying that this bill, before and after its approval, stirred controversy; and the controversy continues. On June 28, 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the law which will mandate insurance coverage in 2014. The involvement of the Supreme Court stemmed from the filing of lawsuits by 26 states after the bill’s passage. The following is an excerpt from an article in the Washington Post: The decision keeps in place the largest new social program in a generation, a major overhaul of the health-care system that could extend coverage to about 30 million Americans. It creates state-run insurance exchanges and eliminates what have been some of the most unpopular insurance practices. The ruling did limit one significant portion of the law, which sought to expand Medicaid to cover millions more poor and disabled people. The program is a joint federal-state effort, and the court said the law’s requirement that states rapidly extend coverage to new beneficiaries or lose existing federal payments was unduly coercive. (Barnes, 2012, paras. 3 and 4). PRESIDENT TRUMP & HEALTHCARE Candidate Trump made multiple promises to undo Changes do not go into effect until 2019, so the REFORM the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as impact of people being able to opt out of Obamacare. Critics warned that repealing the act, one of President Barack Obama's signature pieces of legislation, would lead to hikes in the number of uninsured. However, more than a year after now President Trump took office, the percentage of Americans without health insurance is almost exactly the same as it was at the end of the Obama administration, according to a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report. “In 2017, 29.3 million people were uninsured, only a slight increase from the 2016 levels of 28.6 million, the study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. That’s an uninsured rate of 9.1 percent versus 9 percent,” (Popken, 2018, para. 2). After several efforts, the legislative attempt to undo Obamacare fell apart in the Senate. Republicans, however, were able to repeal portions of the act, including the repeal of the so-called individual mandate, which requires Americans to keep coverage or be fined. coverage without tax penalties on the rates of the uninsured and on premiums covering potentially smaller pools is still unsure. However, “in November, the Congressional Budget Office revised earlier estimates, predicting that repealing the individual mandate would lead to 13 million more Americans losing their coverage over the following 10 years, and premiums going up 10 percent. At the same time, the federal government would save $338 billion,” (Popken, 2018, para. 7). HEALTHCARE REFORMThe administration & TEXAS v. these AZAR is pitching Under guidance by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), states seeking federal waivers to run their insurance marketplaces will be given more latitude to include the ability to apply ACA subsidies to short-term and association health plans — two types of coverage the administration has expanded as a way of making cheaper plans available to those who want them. These plans, however, do not include coverage of certain essential benefits like mental-health services and prenatal care and they can refuse to cover people with preexisting conditions. The ACA requires that people with preexisting conditions can access affordable health care, and the new rules do not change that requirement. Under the new guidance, states can apply for the ability to sell cheaper plans with fewer benefits. But they would still have to offer other health plans with a full range of benefits under the ACA, though they would be more expensive. However, lawmakers and people with preexisting conditions await the ruling of Texas v. Azar. Even without the decision in the Texas case, the administration has been trimming the protections for pre-existing conditions, which are a key part of the ACA, even while the president and health officials say they are still supported. The administration allowed shortterm, limited-duration health plans to expand their duration to 12 months, with renewals that last up to 3 years; previously, the limit was 3 plans, as well as association health plans, as less expensive alternatives to individual health insurance purchased through the exchanges created by the ACA. Neither are required to cover people with pre-existing conditions, like ACA-compliant plans, or offer the ACA’s 10 essential health benefits. (Insarro, 2018, para. 4). “If the federal judge in the Texas v Azar case, rules in favor of the 20 Republican-led states that sued the federal government over the constitutionality of the ACA, it would create a huge cloud over the notion of pre-existing conditions, which played a key role in the outcome of 2018 midterm elections, (Insarro, 2018, para. 5). However, if the judge rules against the ACA, Democrats, when they retake the House of Representatives in January, have pledged to protect the law. However, the matter could find itself in front of the Supreme Court for a UPDATE: TEXAS v. AZAR On Friday, December 14, 2018 a federal judge in Texas ruled that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare as unconstitutional. This court decision is a major step toward invalidating the ACA. As part of the tax overhaul passed last year, the ACA penalty for not having health insurance was eliminated. This went into effect in January, 2018. “In a Federal District Court case, Texas v. Azar, the plaintiffs, Republican officials from 20 states led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, argued that with elimination of the health insurance requirement there is no longer a tax, and therefore the law loses its constitutionality,” (Kohen, 2018, para. 2). In layman’s terms, once the individual mandate, the core of the ACA, is deemed unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA is also unconstitutional. In a 55-page opinion, federal judge Reed O’Connor writes regarding the lawsuit: The court finds the individual mandate can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress’s tax power and is still impermissible under the interstate commerce clause ― meaning the individual mandate is unconstitutional…. [T]he court finds the individual mandate is essential to and inseverable from the remainder of the ACA. (Kohen, 2018, para. 3) This case most likely appears before the U.S. Court of Appeals 5th Circuit, and then possibly on to the Supreme Court, which implies that for now the ACA remains in effect. Suffice to say, removing the individual mandate does not invalidate ACA on policy grounds. It weakens it, for sure. Indeed, the individual mandate is an integral component of the law, because it facilitates pooling of risk and expands population-wide access. But, it is not a necessary part of the law. References  Barnes, R. (June 28, 2012). Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health- care law. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-rule-thursd ay-on-health-care-law/2012/06/28/gJQAarRm8V_story.html  Bock, J. (June 30, 2012). Missouri gets waiver from No Child Left Behind. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved from: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/mo-gets-waiver-from-n o-child-left-behind/article_3f6904cf-4955-55da-aca6-1f64b6db2bb0.ht ml#ixzz1zsQGZPOZ  Cole, Devan, Kaufman, Ellie, and Malloy, Allie. (December 18, 2018). Trump's post-Parkland panel recommends ending Obama-era school discipline policies. CNN Politics. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/education-department-disci pline-policies/index.html  Common Core Standards Initiative. About the Standards. Retrieved from: http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/  Cunningham, Paige Winfield. (October 22, 2018). Trump administration allows ACA subsidies for leaner health plans. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trump-administration- References  Khimm, Suzy and Smith, Allan. (December 18, 2018). Trump administration eyes rolling back Obama-era school discipline policies. NBC News. Retrieved from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-administration-eyesrolling-back-obama-era-school-discipline-policies-n949276  Kohen, Joshua. (December 16, 2018). Texas Judge Deals Obamacare A Major Blow. Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2018/12/16/texas-judge-deals-o bamacare-a-major-blow/#4bbc30dd23e0  Klein, Alyson. (January 10, 2017). The Obama Administration's Imprint on K-12 Policy: A Roundup. Education Week. Retrieved from: https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/the-obama-administration s-imprint-on-k-12-policy.html  Inserro, Allison. (November 30, 2018). 5 Ways the Trump Administration Is Changing Healthcare. AJMC. Retrieved from: https://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/5-ways-the-trump-administration-is-chan ging-healthcare  References  Popken, Ben. (May 23, 2018). After Trump attacks, Americans hold on to health insurance. NBC News. Retrieved from: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/after-trump-attacks-ame ricans-hold-health-insurance-n876506  Resmovits, J. (July 6, 2012). No Child Left Behind Waivers Granted To More Than Half Of U.S. States. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/no-child-left-behind-waiver s_n_1652574.html  Sanchez, Claudio and Turner, Cory (January 13, 2017). Obama’s Impact on America’s Schools. nprED. Retrieved from: https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/01/13/500421608/obamasimpact-on-americas-schools  Simon, C.A. (2010). Public Policy: Preferences and Outcomes (2nd ed). New York: Pearson Longman.  Sisson, C. (January 13, 2012). A decade later: Was No Child Left Behind the answer? The Dispatch. Retrieved from: References  Strauss, V. (January 7, 2012). A decade of No Child Left Behind: Lessons from a policy failure. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/a-decade-o f-no-child-left-behind-lessons-from-a-policy-failure/2012/01/05/gIQAe b19gP_blog.html  Strauss, V. (June 8, 2011). Holding parents accountable: Grades? Fines? Jail? The Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/holding-par ents-accountable-grades-fines-jail/2011/06/07/AG0D4VLH_blog.html  Ujifusa, Andrew. (July 31, 2018). Donald Trump Signs First Major Education Policy Bill of His Presidency. Education Week. Retrieved from: https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/07/31/donald-trump-signscareer-technical-education-bill.html  White House Website. Health Care Reform In Action. Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform
Purchase answer to see full attachment