Unit: Campaigns and Elections (Extra Credit)
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bernie-sanders-gets-some-outside-help-he-didnt-ask-for/
Synopsis: Presidential candidate hopeful Bernie Sanders, Democrat senator of Vermont, likes to talk about how his campaign is not funded by any "super PACs". He does not have one, and does not want one. Yet interestingly, Republicans groups have been supporting his campaign financially. America Rising is a known Republican political action committee. This week, they tweeted excitedly concerning Sanders lead over Hillary Clinton according to the CNN/WMUR poll Tuesday, January 19th. During the Democratic debate, Republican groups like America Rising were defending what Sanders was saying about health care and economy. But why? Most Republicans hate Sanders for his strong liberalism and affection to socialist views. They are really being quite sneaky by helping Sanders out to squelch the chances for Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate hopeful that the right hates even more than Sanders. Nearly $5 million in conservative groups and super PACs have been spent in ads targeting Clinton or helping Sanders in some way that makes Clinton look undesirable. Clinton's campaign has responded that this action is only symbolic of how scared the possible Republican presidential candidate are for the election.
Analysis: This article explored an interesting campaign tactic that I think is very important for both sides to understand and utilize for their party's advantage in this presidential campaign season. The actions of PACs like America Rising over this past week directly hurts Clinton, the Democratic candidate that most right-leaning people despise for her secret email account, Benghazi, and relation to scandal-ridden and former Democratic President Bill Clinton. Clinton is going to be hurt in the primary. Yet, their work as a PAC in creating ads that benefit Sanders and expose Clinton in a negative light works against Sanders. He is continually underscoring his lack of PAC money, attempting to appeal to voters that are tired of the enormous amount of money pointlessly thrown into campaigns. Now whenever he says that, he's now technically lying. This article called this "the effort of the right to attack Mrs. Clinton from the left".
Earlier in the year, American Crossroads and America Rising used this strategy with ads that criticized Clinton's moderate position on the Keystone oil pipeline. This is an example of a position issue, and most Democrats who would vote for Clinton but are in favor of dismantling machinery like the Keystone pipeline find something against Clinton that might sway their decision to Sanders.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
"New Mexico: Politician Must Write Letters"
Unit: Elections and Campaigns
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/us/new-mexico-politician-must-write-letters.html?ref=topics
Synopsis: This article by The New York Times Associated Press reports on a recent development this week in a district court case against Dianna Duran. Once the secretary of state for New Mexico, Duran was part of a campaign finance scandal. Duran was convicted for taking money from her election account to gamble, and claims to have a gambling addiction. The punishment for Duran's part in the scandal over her campaign came from Judge T. Glenn Ellington, who ordered that she must write letters of apology to each of the donors that contributed to her campaign. In addition to writing these letters to the political donors, Judge Ellington ordered that Duran must personally deliver each of the letters. Another letter must be written and sent to the citizenry of the state of New Mexico for her illegal missteps as a political figurehead. Another part of her punishment includes a few thousands hours of community service for the state. Duran also has 30 days in jail for the stealing of campaign election funds.
Analysis: Campaign corruption occurs in these modern times despite the work of the Federal Election Commission in protecting the money of donors and also keeping some kind of level playing field between candidates in an effort to provide some kind of equal opportunity. While "hard money" and "soft money" exist in campaign financing, the former consisting of closely monitored contributions to political candidates while the latter refers to unregulated and unlimited contributions that go directly to political parties in efforts to aid the party as a whole, it is juvenile to think that every candidate will put these funds toward solely campaign purposes and not personal ones. In the case of Duran, if her gambling addiction is real such an action seems nearly unavoidable. With the scandal exposed, Duran's chances for re-election are poor at best, as she will not have support from New Mexico citizenry and wealthy political action committees that might give her private funds. Although the letter writing might seem childish in punishment, her jail-time and community service is sufficient in my opinion to show the state's view on political corruption in campaign finance.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/us/new-mexico-politician-must-write-letters.html?ref=topics
Synopsis: This article by The New York Times Associated Press reports on a recent development this week in a district court case against Dianna Duran. Once the secretary of state for New Mexico, Duran was part of a campaign finance scandal. Duran was convicted for taking money from her election account to gamble, and claims to have a gambling addiction. The punishment for Duran's part in the scandal over her campaign came from Judge T. Glenn Ellington, who ordered that she must write letters of apology to each of the donors that contributed to her campaign. In addition to writing these letters to the political donors, Judge Ellington ordered that Duran must personally deliver each of the letters. Another letter must be written and sent to the citizenry of the state of New Mexico for her illegal missteps as a political figurehead. Another part of her punishment includes a few thousands hours of community service for the state. Duran also has 30 days in jail for the stealing of campaign election funds.
Analysis: Campaign corruption occurs in these modern times despite the work of the Federal Election Commission in protecting the money of donors and also keeping some kind of level playing field between candidates in an effort to provide some kind of equal opportunity. While "hard money" and "soft money" exist in campaign financing, the former consisting of closely monitored contributions to political candidates while the latter refers to unregulated and unlimited contributions that go directly to political parties in efforts to aid the party as a whole, it is juvenile to think that every candidate will put these funds toward solely campaign purposes and not personal ones. In the case of Duran, if her gambling addiction is real such an action seems nearly unavoidable. With the scandal exposed, Duran's chances for re-election are poor at best, as she will not have support from New Mexico citizenry and wealthy political action committees that might give her private funds. Although the letter writing might seem childish in punishment, her jail-time and community service is sufficient in my opinion to show the state's view on political corruption in campaign finance.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
"Voters Rebuke Democrats At Polls In Another Blow To Obama"
Extra Credit Post
Link: http://www.npr.org/2015/11/04/454600865/voters-rebuke-democrats-at-polls-in-another-blow-to-obama
Synopsis: In this article by Jessica Taylor, an exposition of the poor election cycle for Democrats since President Obama's election is explored. Although there is a strong coalition for the Democrats in the presidential years, more and more conservative voters are the ones coming to vote to polls during midterm and off-year elections. Since 2010, Democrats have lost majority in the House and the Senate. Governorships in states and State Legislators that were once Democrats have been replaced by Republicans. In the Southern states especially, even Democrat moderates have not done well as the last Southern Democrat lost his House seat last year and Republicans won four Senate seats in the South last year. In Kentucky, the second Republican governor in the past 40 years won with Matt Blevin. Virginia did not vote for a Democrat seat in the Senate even after the Democrats spent millions of dollars in ads in favor of gun-control. Even some Democrat sympathetic states like Ohio and Missouri voted against liberal policy. Ohio rejected a referendum to legalize marijuana and voters in Houston repealed a law that protected gay rights from discrimination.
Analysis: On election night in Kentucky, Blevin was victorious even though polls showed that Democrat Attorney General Jack Conway had an edge. The GOP once despised Blevin after he tried to beat Mitch McConnell in the Senate primary elections, and his victory represents the Democrats loss in one of the last Southern states they held support in. This is attributed to the anti-Obama tide of conservative voters who view the whole Democrat party in a negative connotation. In Virginia, Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe lost the state Senate to make it Democratic even after progressive agenda pushed in the past and $2.3 million in ads by Michael Bloomberg's gun-control group against two Republican candidates, even with the two reporters murdered on live television in Roanoke. In Ohio and Houston, progressive agenda pushed by Democratic Mayors and advocacy groups fell short as legislation protecting gay rights were repealed and a referendum for marijuana legalization was voted against. The opponents framed both as laws that threatened the safety of children, increased the chance for child predators, and a complete destruction to family values. Overall, this shows that the Democratic ideology lacks passion with more liberal American voters and that ideology that contrasts with Republican party agenda and might have been started by President Obama is pushing people to vote in order to keep Democrats out of state Senates and the House.
Link: http://www.npr.org/2015/11/04/454600865/voters-rebuke-democrats-at-polls-in-another-blow-to-obama
Synopsis: In this article by Jessica Taylor, an exposition of the poor election cycle for Democrats since President Obama's election is explored. Although there is a strong coalition for the Democrats in the presidential years, more and more conservative voters are the ones coming to vote to polls during midterm and off-year elections. Since 2010, Democrats have lost majority in the House and the Senate. Governorships in states and State Legislators that were once Democrats have been replaced by Republicans. In the Southern states especially, even Democrat moderates have not done well as the last Southern Democrat lost his House seat last year and Republicans won four Senate seats in the South last year. In Kentucky, the second Republican governor in the past 40 years won with Matt Blevin. Virginia did not vote for a Democrat seat in the Senate even after the Democrats spent millions of dollars in ads in favor of gun-control. Even some Democrat sympathetic states like Ohio and Missouri voted against liberal policy. Ohio rejected a referendum to legalize marijuana and voters in Houston repealed a law that protected gay rights from discrimination.
Analysis: On election night in Kentucky, Blevin was victorious even though polls showed that Democrat Attorney General Jack Conway had an edge. The GOP once despised Blevin after he tried to beat Mitch McConnell in the Senate primary elections, and his victory represents the Democrats loss in one of the last Southern states they held support in. This is attributed to the anti-Obama tide of conservative voters who view the whole Democrat party in a negative connotation. In Virginia, Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe lost the state Senate to make it Democratic even after progressive agenda pushed in the past and $2.3 million in ads by Michael Bloomberg's gun-control group against two Republican candidates, even with the two reporters murdered on live television in Roanoke. In Ohio and Houston, progressive agenda pushed by Democratic Mayors and advocacy groups fell short as legislation protecting gay rights were repealed and a referendum for marijuana legalization was voted against. The opponents framed both as laws that threatened the safety of children, increased the chance for child predators, and a complete destruction to family values. Overall, this shows that the Democratic ideology lacks passion with more liberal American voters and that ideology that contrasts with Republican party agenda and might have been started by President Obama is pushing people to vote in order to keep Democrats out of state Senates and the House.
"American Public Attitude Toward ISIS and Syria"
Unit: Public Opinion
Link: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2015/01/08-american-opinion-poll-isis-syria-telhami
Synopsis: In this article, Shibley Telhami explores the American beliefs related to the extremist group known as ISIS operating in Syria. At this time in September, the United States Congress decidedly supported "degrading and ultimately destroying" the militant group. The strategy centered on stopping the massacres of innocent citizens and seizing territory in and around Syria. There was little data that existed on the opinion of the American public over the decision to support destroying ISIS or not. Telhami, a nonresident Senior Fellow for Brookings Center, surveyed the Americans views on the rise of the Islamic State and the federal government's work against Syria and Iraq. 70% of Americans believe that the rise of the Islamic State is the number one threat to the country. In terms of political parties, this same opinion holds as about 70% of Republicans, Republicans, and Independents agreed with the rest of the American public. Interestingly, 22% of Republicans believe that most Muslims support the Islamic State, with 6% Democrats having the same idea and 13% of Independents. 57% of Americans think that everything necessary should be done to protect the public. Yet although the American public thinks the issue is important, 57% of Americans oppose sending United States ground troops if airstrikes are not enough. 53% of Republicans are in favor of sending ground troops.
Analysis: This survey was conducted over a period of five days from November 14th to 19th in 2014. The sample size of the Americans surveyed numbered 1008 individuals. It was a random sampling, ensured by a larger standing panel called the KnowledgePanel managed by a research company called GfK. With a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points, data showed would still indicate that the majority stands for each question relating to ISIS. Not any online user can simply volunteer, but picked through a scientific process using randomly generated addresses through the United State's Postal Service's Delivery Sequence File, then select people in each home are invited to participate in the poll by phone. Those without internet are given a computer and access to WiFi. A sample takes a survey, and their responses are compared to the demographics of the United States census. The data findings were weighted to this data.
The American public opinion by political party is interesting to explore, as Telhami's findings correlate with the stereotype that more conservative leanings like Republican Party members are more likely to favor large-scale military intervention than the Democrats. Even so, although the majority of Americans believe that ISIS is the number one threat facing the country and a majority believes everything possible can be done, the majority opinion opposed to ground troops means that the federal government needs to find other possible solutions to reducing the power of ISIS in the Middle East.
Link: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2015/01/08-american-opinion-poll-isis-syria-telhami
Synopsis: In this article, Shibley Telhami explores the American beliefs related to the extremist group known as ISIS operating in Syria. At this time in September, the United States Congress decidedly supported "degrading and ultimately destroying" the militant group. The strategy centered on stopping the massacres of innocent citizens and seizing territory in and around Syria. There was little data that existed on the opinion of the American public over the decision to support destroying ISIS or not. Telhami, a nonresident Senior Fellow for Brookings Center, surveyed the Americans views on the rise of the Islamic State and the federal government's work against Syria and Iraq. 70% of Americans believe that the rise of the Islamic State is the number one threat to the country. In terms of political parties, this same opinion holds as about 70% of Republicans, Republicans, and Independents agreed with the rest of the American public. Interestingly, 22% of Republicans believe that most Muslims support the Islamic State, with 6% Democrats having the same idea and 13% of Independents. 57% of Americans think that everything necessary should be done to protect the public. Yet although the American public thinks the issue is important, 57% of Americans oppose sending United States ground troops if airstrikes are not enough. 53% of Republicans are in favor of sending ground troops.
Analysis: This survey was conducted over a period of five days from November 14th to 19th in 2014. The sample size of the Americans surveyed numbered 1008 individuals. It was a random sampling, ensured by a larger standing panel called the KnowledgePanel managed by a research company called GfK. With a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points, data showed would still indicate that the majority stands for each question relating to ISIS. Not any online user can simply volunteer, but picked through a scientific process using randomly generated addresses through the United State's Postal Service's Delivery Sequence File, then select people in each home are invited to participate in the poll by phone. Those without internet are given a computer and access to WiFi. A sample takes a survey, and their responses are compared to the demographics of the United States census. The data findings were weighted to this data.
The American public opinion by political party is interesting to explore, as Telhami's findings correlate with the stereotype that more conservative leanings like Republican Party members are more likely to favor large-scale military intervention than the Democrats. Even so, although the majority of Americans believe that ISIS is the number one threat facing the country and a majority believes everything possible can be done, the majority opinion opposed to ground troops means that the federal government needs to find other possible solutions to reducing the power of ISIS in the Middle East.
Friday, October 30, 2015
"A Humbler Donald Trump Pleads With Iowans: 'I'm Not Leaving'"
Unit: Public Culture
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/28/a-humbler-donald-trump-pleads-with-iowans-im-not-leaving/?ref=topics&_r=0
Synopsis: In this article, Trip Gabriel documents one infamous competitor in the search for the next Republican presidential candidate. Beloved by the media for his popularity with the general public, Trump disseminates his political and social ideologies by being blunt and brash in order to create simplicity. According to recent polling, Trump has lost his lead in the state of Iowa. After leading the poll for Republican candidacy in the state for the last few months, being reduced to second place made Iowa the next necessary state to visit on his campaign trail. Encompassing a majority of evangelical voters, mainly women, the popular candidate was shifting to Ben Carson over Trump. He decided to visit again though his political campaign heads advised him to "cut his losses". He promised to work really hard, and that he "loved them all", although needling his haters and encouraging his supporters at the same time. Arguing with the recent data has turned to bargaining as Trump asked Iowans to stick with their decisions. Not singling out Carson's Seventh-day Adventist faith proved to be a smart decision in a state like Iowa where personal religion is not to be criticized. He ended his campaign outreaches and talks in Iowa with the following: "Now if I lose Iowa, I will never speak to you people again".
Analysis: Considering the different ways to use data represented through polling, in this instance Trump feels like losing first place deserves a fight to regain that number-one place in the Republican rankings. In terms of political ideology, the stereotypical Iowan citizen agrees with many of the conservative views of Trump. According to Gabriel, Trump has the resource of a grassroots-program advocate in Iowa for encouraging Republican political socialization. This strategist claims that Trump might still be able to win in Iowa, since he has been leading in all the past polls. Yet the past history shows that no candidate who has lost a lead in the polls in both the last two cycles has won the final candidacy. But does Trump really have the resources and time to personalize his political message to urge a percentage of Iowan voters back to his side? It is advised to spend valuable campaign time winning voters on the mid-line between important issues who are able to be swayed. Perhaps Trump is taking this drop in the polling too personally, and this pride and shame of humility might prove to lose him other votes in states where he could have influenced voters in order to win by a majority.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/28/a-humbler-donald-trump-pleads-with-iowans-im-not-leaving/?ref=topics&_r=0
Synopsis: In this article, Trip Gabriel documents one infamous competitor in the search for the next Republican presidential candidate. Beloved by the media for his popularity with the general public, Trump disseminates his political and social ideologies by being blunt and brash in order to create simplicity. According to recent polling, Trump has lost his lead in the state of Iowa. After leading the poll for Republican candidacy in the state for the last few months, being reduced to second place made Iowa the next necessary state to visit on his campaign trail. Encompassing a majority of evangelical voters, mainly women, the popular candidate was shifting to Ben Carson over Trump. He decided to visit again though his political campaign heads advised him to "cut his losses". He promised to work really hard, and that he "loved them all", although needling his haters and encouraging his supporters at the same time. Arguing with the recent data has turned to bargaining as Trump asked Iowans to stick with their decisions. Not singling out Carson's Seventh-day Adventist faith proved to be a smart decision in a state like Iowa where personal religion is not to be criticized. He ended his campaign outreaches and talks in Iowa with the following: "Now if I lose Iowa, I will never speak to you people again".
Analysis: Considering the different ways to use data represented through polling, in this instance Trump feels like losing first place deserves a fight to regain that number-one place in the Republican rankings. In terms of political ideology, the stereotypical Iowan citizen agrees with many of the conservative views of Trump. According to Gabriel, Trump has the resource of a grassroots-program advocate in Iowa for encouraging Republican political socialization. This strategist claims that Trump might still be able to win in Iowa, since he has been leading in all the past polls. Yet the past history shows that no candidate who has lost a lead in the polls in both the last two cycles has won the final candidacy. But does Trump really have the resources and time to personalize his political message to urge a percentage of Iowan voters back to his side? It is advised to spend valuable campaign time winning voters on the mid-line between important issues who are able to be swayed. Perhaps Trump is taking this drop in the polling too personally, and this pride and shame of humility might prove to lose him other votes in states where he could have influenced voters in order to win by a majority.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
"The Strange Political Culture of Today's GOP"
Unit: Political Culture
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-schmookler/the-strange-political-cul_b_8146870.html
Synopsis: In this article, Andy Schmookler juxtaposes long-standing American values and political ideology. With the example of the then current Speaker of the House's declaration on the Republican party's continued fight against the Iran deal, he claims that such a response defies two rules. First, that such behavior constitutes that of a sore loser, or someone with sour grapes, who does not deign to offer congratulations or at least respect to the winning party. The example of the hawks' battle over land lost in the Panama Canal Treaty during President Jimmy Carter's term in office was given, as in this modern time they lost, but in the past when the same thing happened they accepted the deal and moved on with their political concerns. Schmookler gave another example of the Republican party's bad attitude on the political field with health care, with President Obama and the Democrats coming out as the clear leaders with the creation of Obamacare. The author argues that the Republicans have still not moved on after five years after refusing to expand Medicaid at the state level and voting to repeal the act over fifty times in the House. The second rule that the Republicans are defying is the need for purposeful action; Boehner's comment emphasizes a political culture that does not care if their action will achieve positive results or not, as seen in the battle against the Iran deal and health care.
Analysis: This article creates imagery between the Democrats and Republicans reminiscent of squabbling children upset over the result of a play activity. It is difficult to think of individuals who hold power over the direction of the nation resort to such childish coping abilities for losing. The Republican party does not need any other obstacles standing in their way what with the upcoming presidential elections for 2016 and their failure in the past presidential elections compared to the Democrat's success. The author specifically named Ted Cruz as such a Republican who emphasizes the wasteful political action and opinions in exchange for a medic presence. The worry is what the voters will think; do the people want a party that is again threatening to shut down government over federal funding for Planned Parenthood, a major conflict for congressional Republicans? Although more progressive topics like abortion stands with pro-choice liberals, does the role of religion in the more conservative and Republican pro-life stance on the issue need to be continually publicized in the political playing field instead of compromising or even admitting to loss? Perhaps the Republican party feel like they need to defend their ideals for their voters in the losing political culture to think that their opinions are being supported and worked on, but there comes a point when an issue has been resolved and put to rest and further fighting is futile and purposeless.
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-schmookler/the-strange-political-cul_b_8146870.html
Synopsis: In this article, Andy Schmookler juxtaposes long-standing American values and political ideology. With the example of the then current Speaker of the House's declaration on the Republican party's continued fight against the Iran deal, he claims that such a response defies two rules. First, that such behavior constitutes that of a sore loser, or someone with sour grapes, who does not deign to offer congratulations or at least respect to the winning party. The example of the hawks' battle over land lost in the Panama Canal Treaty during President Jimmy Carter's term in office was given, as in this modern time they lost, but in the past when the same thing happened they accepted the deal and moved on with their political concerns. Schmookler gave another example of the Republican party's bad attitude on the political field with health care, with President Obama and the Democrats coming out as the clear leaders with the creation of Obamacare. The author argues that the Republicans have still not moved on after five years after refusing to expand Medicaid at the state level and voting to repeal the act over fifty times in the House. The second rule that the Republicans are defying is the need for purposeful action; Boehner's comment emphasizes a political culture that does not care if their action will achieve positive results or not, as seen in the battle against the Iran deal and health care.
Analysis: This article creates imagery between the Democrats and Republicans reminiscent of squabbling children upset over the result of a play activity. It is difficult to think of individuals who hold power over the direction of the nation resort to such childish coping abilities for losing. The Republican party does not need any other obstacles standing in their way what with the upcoming presidential elections for 2016 and their failure in the past presidential elections compared to the Democrat's success. The author specifically named Ted Cruz as such a Republican who emphasizes the wasteful political action and opinions in exchange for a medic presence. The worry is what the voters will think; do the people want a party that is again threatening to shut down government over federal funding for Planned Parenthood, a major conflict for congressional Republicans? Although more progressive topics like abortion stands with pro-choice liberals, does the role of religion in the more conservative and Republican pro-life stance on the issue need to be continually publicized in the political playing field instead of compromising or even admitting to loss? Perhaps the Republican party feel like they need to defend their ideals for their voters in the losing political culture to think that their opinions are being supported and worked on, but there comes a point when an issue has been resolved and put to rest and further fighting is futile and purposeless.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
"Restoring Federalism in Education"
Unit: Federalism
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-j-gentzel/restoring-federalism-in-e_b_8177738.html
Synopsis: In this article, Thomas J. Gentzel remarks upon relationship between federalism and education in the United States of America. The author argues that the central ideology has been twisted, or very nearly lost, after the growing power of the central government in the nation after responses to changing times and the modern age like terrorism. Since Congress makes up only a small part of the government, the power of the state and local governments are being seen as negligible through the eyes of many students in both high school and middle school. Gentzel proposes that the current connotation of federalism in the classroom is associated with the word "federal", conjuring images of the executive branch and figureheads in Congress. A possible venue that might cause this skewed belief to change and realize the role of state and local governments might exist in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) bills passed by the House of Representatives and Senate. These acts, though not flawless, emphasize the role of local levels of government in giving public school education. Some groups like the National School Boards Association and their state school board association counterparts see this movement of power as more beneficial opposed to the current situation without acts like ESEA.
Analysis: The best definition of federalism is where every level of government works together for the benefit of the citizenry. In the exposition of this article, the ESEA represents a significant win in the legal world for proponents behind a more federalist power distribution like cooperative federalism in the creation and implementation of education systems in the United States. In fact, this article was originally published in the American School Board Journal earlier in this week of October, 2015, an organization dedicated to informing the public about school government and changes in policy that affect the growing generation of citizens. Although the exact intergovernmental relations proposed through this bill are still being figured out in the legal workplace, it seems natural for the state and local government to have more power in public education. This act is not evidence of devolution; rather, national legislation fails to incorporate the unique needs of towns, counties, or states that might be subject to special circumstances. Yet according to the Supremacy Clause, education legislation must be followed by all states in the nation. For example, the recent Common Core State Standards prove difficulty for different schools in which the overall population is not aiming for standardized "success in college" but rather working towards a trade or another kind of vocational technical educational path. Hopefully the ESEA passes with a precedent for future education legislation in which greater personalization state-by-state is possible with local government feedback and regulation in education delivery.
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-j-gentzel/restoring-federalism-in-e_b_8177738.html
Synopsis: In this article, Thomas J. Gentzel remarks upon relationship between federalism and education in the United States of America. The author argues that the central ideology has been twisted, or very nearly lost, after the growing power of the central government in the nation after responses to changing times and the modern age like terrorism. Since Congress makes up only a small part of the government, the power of the state and local governments are being seen as negligible through the eyes of many students in both high school and middle school. Gentzel proposes that the current connotation of federalism in the classroom is associated with the word "federal", conjuring images of the executive branch and figureheads in Congress. A possible venue that might cause this skewed belief to change and realize the role of state and local governments might exist in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) bills passed by the House of Representatives and Senate. These acts, though not flawless, emphasize the role of local levels of government in giving public school education. Some groups like the National School Boards Association and their state school board association counterparts see this movement of power as more beneficial opposed to the current situation without acts like ESEA.
Analysis: The best definition of federalism is where every level of government works together for the benefit of the citizenry. In the exposition of this article, the ESEA represents a significant win in the legal world for proponents behind a more federalist power distribution like cooperative federalism in the creation and implementation of education systems in the United States. In fact, this article was originally published in the American School Board Journal earlier in this week of October, 2015, an organization dedicated to informing the public about school government and changes in policy that affect the growing generation of citizens. Although the exact intergovernmental relations proposed through this bill are still being figured out in the legal workplace, it seems natural for the state and local government to have more power in public education. This act is not evidence of devolution; rather, national legislation fails to incorporate the unique needs of towns, counties, or states that might be subject to special circumstances. Yet according to the Supremacy Clause, education legislation must be followed by all states in the nation. For example, the recent Common Core State Standards prove difficulty for different schools in which the overall population is not aiming for standardized "success in college" but rather working towards a trade or another kind of vocational technical educational path. Hopefully the ESEA passes with a precedent for future education legislation in which greater personalization state-by-state is possible with local government feedback and regulation in education delivery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)