Exam 2 Study Guide: Lectures 11-20 POLS 207 Lecture 11Outline of Lecture:Fiscal and Policy Capacity of the States Part 1I. Increased federal gvt. role in educationA. ESEA (1965)B. NCLB (2001) II. Northwest Ordinance of 1787III. “Incrementalism”The Big Idea: “Fiscal and Policy Capacity of the States” refers to “the capacity to design, manage, and finance quality public programs,” as defined by Dixon. This is one source of modern centralization, because the national government has deeper pockets than the state governments, and is the national government is therefore more powerful. One of the areas where the federal government’s role is increasing is education. For more information on the fed’s role in education (which has been increasing since 1965), see D&M chapter 16:537 - 42, 545-48, 554 - 57See Key Terms for chapter 16 on “The Politics of Education” and Halter chapter 11:241-44* (*deals with school finance)See Key Terms for chapter 14 on “The Politics of Taxation and Finance,” including D&M chapter 3:84, 87 - 91 on federal aid and chapter 17: 562 - 65 on poverty. Also see Halter chapter 10:200 – 218 Two pieces of legislation that dramatically increased the federal role in education: - ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) – 1965- NCLB (No Child Left Behind) - 2001The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 is typically cited as an example of one of the federal government’s first commitments to public education. This is pretty interesting considering that it only contains one phrase that deals with education. Lecture 12Outline of Lecture:Fiscal and Policy Capacity of the States Part 2I. Government funding for religious schools?A. Constitutional (national and state) issueB. Selective incorporationC. Supreme Court’s 3-fold testD. Political considerationsE. Federal education aid between 1965 and 2001The Big Idea: Prior to ESEA (1965) Federal aid money for education was fairly small and when it was offered, it was targeted to specific areas. In funding public education, we inevitably run into the question of what to do with parochial (religious) schools. Should they receive funding?  When dealing with this question of funding for parochial schools, we run into the 1st Amendment and Article 1, Section 7 of the Texas Bill of Rights, which would seem to prohibit use of public funds for religious schools. However, there are various interpretations. Since the 1970s, SCOTUS has used a 3-fold test to see if government entanglement is permissible. See “Lemon test” (D&M 16:555 - 56) There are some political considerations to take into account: - Fear among Protestants of “Catholicism”- The fact that some Congressmen refuse to support “general” federal aid unless it also went to Catholic schools- Federal funding for private schools would likely reduce private school autonomy, which in some ways defeats the point of private schools. Lecture 13Outline of Lecture:Federal Role in Education I. No Child Left BehindA. Increased federal role B. Federally mandated standardized testing for all C. All children “proficient” by 2014D. Reduced differences among “groups”The Big Idea: NCLB (2001) was passed under the Bush Administration, with support from both parties. However, it is also widely criticized by both parties. It’s a sweeping educational reform that has greatly increased Federal oversight of education (Although funding from the federal government still accounts for only 10% of education expenditures). NCLB involves federally mandated annual testing for grades 3 – 12 (measuring AYP – annual yearly progress). Most importantly, it requires that by 2014, ALL children must be “proficient” in reading and math (hence the name “no child left behind”). Another important goal of NCLB is reducing the differences between “groups” (Racial, Socioeconomical, Disability, Language, etc.). Moreover, these AYP reports must be published, making it hard for school districts to gloss over failing rates. Lecture 14Outline of Lecture:NCLB, the Obama Administration, and Education (Oh My!)I. Continuing issues in NCLBII. The Obama Administration’s educational agendaA. Race to the TopB. National Assessment of Educational Progress (“common standards”)The Big Idea: 1) There are many complications in NCLB, many revolving around its possible reauthorization. This would require widespread Democratic support, which is complicated because racial minorities and teachers are important elements of the Democratic base, and many areas of NCLB are concerning to them (for example, minorities tend to be skeptical of standardized testing, and teachers don’t appreciate having their pay tied to student achievement). 2) The Obama Administration has an expansive educational agenda, including, toname just a few things, increasing federal financial aid, encouraging states to develop “common” educational standards, and linking teacher pay to student achievement.  “Race to the Top” – A competitive grant program meant to encourage school districts to up their standards of excellence. It involves requirements like using national standards as benchmarks, and developing data systems for tracking individual student achievement. The Obama Administration will waive the 2014 NCLB “proficiency” requirement for individualstates IF states request a waiver, and IF the states develop rigorous standards for making sure their students have achieved “college or career readiness” by the time they graduate. There areadditional requirements, but that’s the most important one. Lecture 15Outline of Lecture:More Thoughts on NCLB and School FundingI. No Child Left BehindA. Is it even possible? a. Coleman Report (1966)II. Federal Courts’ role in educationA. 14th Amendment litigationB. Religious practices in the public school systemThe Big Idea: Some common criticisms of NCLB: 1) Federal intrusion, 2) Insufficient funding, 3) Unreasonable AYP standards, 4) There is too much emphasis on testing. 5) Is it even possible forno child to be “left behind”?  NCLB is premised on the idea that what a child brings to school in terms of attitude, work ethic, etc. won’t have any bearing on their academic achievement level. We know this to be false (Coleman Report, 1966 – “home environment” matters more than “school environment” in terms of predicting student achievement).  Lecture 16Outline of