|
|
|
|
Higher Standards: We'd Love to But... |
|
| Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Get this Document | Similar Titles |
|
STOP! You can now view the document associated with this citation by clicking on the "View Document as HTML" link below. |
|
Click here to view the document
|
Abstract:
|
Federal education politics have been peculiar during the past twelve years. There was a sudden and unexpected consensus- congressmen and presidents held that students in America's public schools were learning less than they should. Moreover, the left and the right agreed that the proper policy response to this public problem was to raise education standards. Accordingly, recent years brought five major federal policy initiatives to raise education standards: America 2000, Goals 2000, the 1994 Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Voluntary National Tests (VNT’s), and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB). Yet, for all the effort the policies have failed. America 2000 and VNT’s did not pass Congress; and Goals 2000, the 1994 Reauthorization of the ESEA, and NCLB have had negligible effects on standards.
Research Question:
Why have the efforts to make federal policy to raise education standards failed?
Hypothesis:
National politicians do not object to standards per se. In fact, they avidly support standards. However, a deep-rooted political division has confounded the efforts to create effective national standards policy. The sources of the present political divide in federal education politics are twofold. First, the tradition of local control of schooling limited the politically feasible extents of raising educational standards through federal policy. In short, conservatives have denied the federal government direct means for raising standards, forcing policymakers to use indirect and ineffective approaches. Second, liberals believe that academic under-achievement is largely a function of school funding. They have, therefore, refused to accept higher standards without federal action to equalize school funding and resources. Doing this though, would not only be expensive, but it would also be a dramatic invasion of local control, which, as noted above, conservatives stand firmly against.
Source Materials:
This paper draws on a larger study that utilized primary source documents, including transcripts of congressional hearings on education bills and floor debates, the presidential platforms of the major parties, and interviews with policymakers. These were supplemented with secondary sources (newspapers, Congressional Quarterly, National Journal, texts, etc.) |
Most Common Document Word Stems:
educ (149), standard (133), school (100), feder (78), state (67), public (63), nation (60), polici (52), 2000 (50), govern (46), goal (40), american (39), p (32), test (31), student (30), america (29), rais (28), achiev (26), act (26), high (25), new (25), |
|
|
 | Convention | | Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting. |  | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. |  | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! |  | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! |  | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. |  | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! |  | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
Association:
Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
|
Citation:
|
MLA Citation:
| Kosar, Kevin. "Higher Standards: We'd Love to But..." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia Marriott Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 27, 2003 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p62118_index.html> |
APA Citation:
| Kosar, K. , 2003-08-27 "Higher Standards: We'd Love to But..." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia Marriott Hotel, Philadelphia, PA Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-26 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p62118_index.html |
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: Federal education politics have been peculiar during the past twelve years. There was a sudden and unexpected consensus- congressmen and presidents held that students in America's public schools were learning less than they should. Moreover, the left and the right agreed that the proper policy response to this public problem was to raise education standards. Accordingly, recent years brought five major federal policy initiatives to raise education standards: America 2000, Goals 2000, the 1994 Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Voluntary National Tests (VNT’s), and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB). Yet, for all the effort the policies have failed. America 2000 and VNT’s did not pass Congress; and Goals 2000, the 1994 Reauthorization of the ESEA, and NCLB have had negligible effects on standards.
Research Question:
Why have the efforts to make federal policy to raise education standards failed?
Hypothesis:
National politicians do not object to standards per se. In fact, they avidly support standards. However, a deep-rooted political division has confounded the efforts to create effective national standards policy. The sources of the present political divide in federal education politics are twofold. First, the tradition of local control of schooling limited the politically feasible extents of raising educational standards through federal policy. In short, conservatives have denied the federal government direct means for raising standards, forcing policymakers to use indirect and ineffective approaches. Second, liberals believe that academic under-achievement is largely a function of school funding. They have, therefore, refused to accept higher standards without federal action to equalize school funding and resources. Doing this though, would not only be expensive, but it would also be a dramatic invasion of local control, which, as noted above, conservatives stand firmly against.
Source Materials:
This paper draws on a larger study that utilized primary source documents, including transcripts of congressional hearings on education bills and floor debates, the presidential platforms of the major parties, and interviews with policymakers. These were supplemented with secondary sources (newspapers, Congressional Quarterly, National Journal, texts, etc.) |
Get this Document:
Find this citation or document at one or all of these locations below. The links below may have the citation or the entire document for free or you may purchase access to the document. Clicking on these links will change the site you're on and empty your shopping cart.
| Document Type: |
.PDF |
| Page count: |
20 |
| Word count: |
8826 |
| Text sample: |
| Higher Standards: We'd Love to But... Kevin R. Kosar Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service New York University & Metropolitan College of New York kkosar@sprynet.com http://www.kevinrkosar.com DRAFT—Please do not quote or cite without author’s permission Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Philadelphia PA August 27-31 2003 1 I. Introduction Federal education politics have been peculiar during the past twelve years. There was a sudden and unexpected consensus- congressmen and presidents held that |
| representatives wanted. Unfortunately this is what we got and there’s no reason to believe that we will get anything better in the foreseeable future. 19 Appendix A Presidents and the Partisan Congressional Arenas they faced. Year President Senate House Standards Proposal 1991-93 GHW Bush 44-56 167-267-1 America 2000 1993-95 Clinton 57-43 258-176-1 Goals 2000 1995-97 Clinton 47-53 204-230-1 IASA 1997-99 Clinton 45-55 206-228-1 VNT 1999-01 Clinton 45-55 211-223-1 VNT 2002-03 GW Bush 50-50 221-212-2 NCLB |
Similar Titles:
National-State Government Policy Cycles in American Federalism: Fluctuations in Policy Outputs
The Effect of High-Stakes Testing and the Over-Representation of African American Students in Louisiana Public Schools
|
|