Polar Politics

Orion Anderson

Advanced Government

7 December 2012       

“Polar Politics”

Political parties have been an important element of politics in the United States since the early 1800s. While the Constitution does not address them specifically, they are accepted by most Americans as an integral component of the election process. Two major parties have come to prominence over the past one hundred and fifty years. The Democratic and Republican parties have many different positions on several issues. Issues on which their stances differ include same-sex marriage, Social Security, government-funded passenger rail service, and defense spending.

            The issue of same-sex marriage is constantly debated between the Republican and Democratic parties. Republicans are adamant that a Constitutional amendment be passed “defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman” (2012 Republican Platform 10), while the Democratic Party stated in its 2012 platform that it supports “marriage equality” and “equal treatment under law for same-sex couples” (18). Also in its 2012 platform, the Democratic Party called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA (18). DOMA, passed in 1996, defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman (Gacek). Instead of DOMA, the Democratic Party supports the Respect for Marriage Act (2012 Democratic National Platform 18). This act will “uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples” (Curtis). The decision to ban or acknowledge same-sex marriage should be left to the states; therefore, the Constitutional amendment proposed by the Republican Party should not be passed. The Democratic and Republican parties have very different views on the issue of same-sex marriage.

            Social Security has been relied on as a post-retirement source of income since its inception in the 1930s. The Democrats and the Republicans have polar views on the issue. Republicans support the privatization of Social Security and the option for younger citizens to create personal investment accounts (2012 Republican Platform 22), whereas Democrats prefer more government involvement. In the 2012 Democratic National Platform, the party stated that it would “block Republican efforts to subject Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market through privatization” (5). In its 2012 platform, the Democratic Party failed to address the advances in medical technology that have allowed retirees to live longer. The Republican Party stated that “comprehensive reform should address our society’s remarkable medical advances in longevity…” (2012 Republican Platform 22). This raises the question as to whether the age at which citizens can receive Social Security benefits should be raised. Social Security should be gradually privatized and funded less and less by tax dollars. The Republican idea of personal investment accounts is the solution to a declining federal system. Taking into account recent advancements in medicine, the age for Social Security benefits should be raised.

            The passenger rail system in the United States was, at one time, one of the most impressive parts of its infrastructure. Today, Amtrak is the only provider of long-distance passenger rail in the country, with the northeast corridor being its most heavily-used area. The Republican Party states in its 2012 platform that “Amtrak continues to be, for the taxpayers, an extremely expensive railroad. The public has to subsidize every ticket nearly $50” (6). Passenger rail was not addressed by the Democratic Party in its 2012 platform; however, President Obama was quoted in a 2010 USA Today article about high-speed rail as saying that “There's no reason why Europe or China should have the fastest trains when we can build them right here in America” (McGee). The article went on to outline the costs of American high-speed rail, which are in the billions of dollars for research and construction, let alone operating costs. All of this money will come from tax payers. Democrats believe some of the biggest advantages of high-speed rail are its environmental benefits. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, refutes this claim, and was quoted later in the USA Today article, stating that “"Saving energy and reducing pollution are worthy goals, and if high-speed trains could achieve these goals, the president's plan might be a good one. But since they cannot, it isn't” (McGee). If high-speed rail is to be expanded throughout the United States, tax dollars should not be used to undertake such a massive and expensive project. The Republicans and Democrats constantly debate the issue of government-funded passenger rail.

            While tax dollars should not go towards the establishment of high-speed passenger rail in America, those funds should be used in the area of defense. A strong system of defense is essential for national security. When funds are cut, the security of American’s citizens is threatened. The opinions of Republicans and Democrats differ on the issue of defense spending. The Democratic Party stated in its 2012 platform that “in our current fiscal environment, we must also make tough budgetary decisions across the board – and that includes within the defense budget” (29). The Republican Party felt quite the opposite, stating in its 2012 platform, “Sequestration—which is severe, automatic, across-the-board cuts in defense spending over the next decade—of the nation’s military budget would be a disaster for national security, imperiling the safety of our servicemen and women, accelerating the decline of our nation’s defense industrial base, and resulting in the layoff of more than 1 million skilled workers” (40). The platform also goes on to state that the national defense system will be considered a “hollow force” if all the cuts are made as planned (41). A cut in national defense spending would be dangerous to the peace of the United States. The opposite must occur. Defense spending must increase in order to maintain national security.

            The opinions of Democrats and Republicans polarize on many issues, including same-sex marriage, Social Security, government-funded passenger rail service, and defense spending. Over the past 150 years, the Democrats and Republicans have remained two distinct parties. Each has its own ideological views and candidates to implement them on all levels of government. They have been present since the early 1800s. Today, political parties are accepted as an essential element of the election process.

Works Cited

Curtis, Colleen. “President Obama Supports the Respect for Marriage Act.” The White House Blog. The White House, 19 July 2011. Web. 6 December 2012.

Gacek, Christopher. “Basic Facts About the Defense of Marriage Act.” Family Research Council. Family Research Council, 2012. Web. 6 December 2012.

McGee, Bill. “Is High-Speed Rail On Track In The U.S.?” USA Today. USA Today, 29 September 2010. Web. 6 December 2012.

“Moving America Forward: 2012 Democratic National Platform.” Democrats.org. Democratic National Committee, 2012. Web. 6 December 2012.

“We Believe in America: Republican Platform 2012.” GOP.com. Republican National Committee, 2012. Web. 6 December 2012.

No Child Left Behind - An Essay

I feel quite strongly about No Child left Behind and this is a paper I wrote not too long ago about it.

“In a real sense, NCLB was a mighty yawp of frustration uttered by Washington policymakers tired of nicely asking educators to cooperate-and ready to ruffle some feathers” (Hess and Petrilli). As is evidenced by this quote, stated by educators Frederick M. Hess and Michael J. Petrilli, the No Child Left Behind Act has stirred up a lot of controversy since its inception. It has caused a divide between educators and the government. No Child Left Behind is wrong.

Since the 1990s, educational reform has been on the rise. This culminated in 2002 with the initiation of President George W. Bush’s signature educational reform, the No Child Left Behind Act. Designed to increase standardized testing and improve school accountability, the law was the largest educational reform in history. Signed into action on January 8, 2002, the law was hailed as a triumph of Bush; however, it still had its fair share of criticisms.

One reason why NCLB is wrong is because it has mandated the increase of standardized testing. The increase in the amount of standardized testing in schools has caused an increase in the number of dropouts. Those who feel they cannot pass the test don’t think they need to stay in school (Rueter). Although the law has had a positive effect on test scores in some schools, the majority of the United States has not had a major improvement in test scores (Murray). The NCLB Act has opened the eyes of educators by emphasizing better test scores and showing how hard it is to achieve these goals (Rueter).

Through the increase in standardized testing, NCLB has increased the amount of anxiety and cheating. The amount of tests that students have to take and the pressure that is placed on them by administrators to succeed has caused a massive amount of anxiety to take over the student. This anxiety leads to cheating. In 2004 the Dallas Morning News stated that teachers, who were in fear of losing their jobs because of low test scores, helped students cheat on their tests at 400 schools throughout Texas (Rueter). Many children are even scared by the amount of pressure placed on them. This causes them to become unresponsive and not try (Houston 127).

NCLB has blocked uniqueness among students. By focusing on test scores, schools put children into a mold. By making students take large amounts of tests, students become more invisible and less individual (Childress 77). Students only become known for their test scores, instead of their personalities. The law has also contributed to a loss in educational freedom for students. Children should have the right to direct their learning path through school, rather than having to fit into a mold by taking standardized tests (Holt 25).

In addition to the strain on students, NCLB’s required increase in the amount of standardized testing has caused a reduction of meaningful instruction in school. Courses that are not tested through NCLB have been eliminated at many schools. This has resulted in a narrow curriculum and “teaching to the test” (Houston 127). These classes include music, art, history, physical education, and recess (Rueter). Due to the amount of course elimination, the overall school experience has been limited (Meier and Harrison xii). Ten percent of a school’ instruction time is spent on standardized testing. This number should be reduced. In many instances, more time is spent testing on what has been learned than actually learning (Houston 126).

The NCLB Act has unrealistic goals and unclear definitions. Although the law requires 100% proficiency by 2014, throughout its 1,100 pages it never defines proficiency (Uzzell). Furthermore, the law mandated that by 2006 all teachers must be thoroughly knowledgeable of their subjects, but there are no definite “knowledge standards” for teachers (Uzzell). Charles Murray, scholar for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, reflected on NCLB’s unrealistic goals, “Many laws are too optimistic, but the No Child Left Behind Act transcended optimism. It set a goal that was devoid of any contact with reality” (Murray). In addition to having unclear definitions and unrealistic goals, NCLB was out of touch with the educational world. The Department of Education relied on government officials to make decisions, rather than teachers and school administrators (Houston 128).

As mentioned previously, the NCLB Act has dramatically increased the power of the federal government over education. Government organizations should not be law enforcers for the public school system. They should have a more collaborative role with public schools (Jones 150). NCLB has also warped school accountability. Schools should be held accountable to parents, students, and local residents rather than the government (Jones 144). NCLB strengthened the educational bureaucracy. Although the amount of federal involvement in schools was modified by Margaret Spellings in 2005, it still did not eliminate the bureaucracy altogether (Bush 276). Most schools do not have a choice but to accept the overwhelming amount of government control. Upon acceptance of federal funds, the state and its schools are required to allow the government to change state and local decisions (Berlak). The amount of funding for NCLB is also ludicrous. The tax dollars of the American people have been wasted on countless amounts of tests and programs. Through the NCLB Act, federal education spending increased by 39% (Bush 277).

NCLB has caused unrest among teachers. Through the law, teachers feel that they have been bullied (Wallis). By exposing failing students, teachers felt humiliated. Susan Neuman, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education from 2000 to 2003, said, “Vilifying teachers and saying we are going to shame them was not the right approach” (Wallis). This shows that even the federal government was not happy with this aspect of NCLB.

One of the main goals of the No Child Left Behind Act was fixing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing students. Many supporters argue that NCLB has mended this gap. Truthfully, the law has widened the achievement gap. For one thing, there are many differences that lie outside of student performance. Between various school districts and states, there are many differences in financial support (Houston 126). Richer schools spend ten times more than poorer schools. This enormous difference is a major factor in the achievement gap (Meier and Harrison 6). By punishing poor schools, the government is widening the achievement gap. Poor schools have larger class sizes, less teachers, less materials, and less extracurricular activities. These schools are punished for not meeting achievement standards, but they really cannot afford to (Meier and Harrison 6). Through the punishment of low-achieving schools, transfers have increased. When these transfers occur, the schools often lose proficient students. When the schools don’t meet testing standards because they have lost these students, they receive more punishment from the government. This causes more transfers. It is an endless cycle (Belcher). Therefore, NCLB has not fixed the achievement gap. It has widened it.

Many NCLB supporters also claim that the law reveals all low-achieving schools through rigorous standardized testing. NCLB does not reveal all low-achieving schools. First, the majority of the United States lies about test results (Uzzell). In their NCLB reports, many states lie about graduation rates. North Carolina once claimed a graduation rate of 97%. A typical graduation rate is 64% (Uzzell). Also, the testing methods used for NCLB are unauthentic. The results of disadvantaged children are compared with those of outstanding children, which skews the overall school results (Uzzell).

As is evidenced by these numerous informative and legitimate reasons, No Child Left Behind is wrong. The government has greatly increased its role within the American public school system. When the law was put into action in 2002, it was lauded as being the signature educational reform of the last century, but was criticized for “ruffling too many feathers.” However, no one can argue that No Child Left Behind has had an effect, positive or negative, on public education.

Works Cited

Belcher, Chris. “Superintendent’s View: NCLB and the Loss of Local Control.” Columbia

Business Times. 18 September 2009. Web. 1 March 2011. <http://www.columbiabusinesstimes.com/5747/2009/09/18/superintendents-view-nclb-and-the-loss-of-local-control/>

Berlak, Harold. “The No Child Left Behind Act and the ‘Reading First’ Program.” Education

and Democracy. 10 October 2003. Web. 1 March 2011. <http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/Resources/Berlak-control.htm>

Bush, George W. Decision Points. New York: Crown Publishers, 2010. Print.

Childress, Herb. “Subtractive Education.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues.

            Ed. James Wm. Noll. New York: McGraw Hill, 2009. 73-80. Print.

Hess, Frederick M., and Michael J. Petrilli. “The Politics of No Child Left Behind: Will the

Coalition Hold?” American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. 1 January 2004. Web. 8 March 2011. <http://www.aei.org/article/24565>

Holt, John. “Escape From Childhood.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues. Ed.

James Wm. Noll. New York: McGraw Hill, 2009. 25-29. Print.

Houston, Paul D. “The Seven Deadly Sins of No Child Left Behind.” Taking Sides: Clashing

Views on Educational Issues. Ed. James Wm. Noll. New York: McGraw Hill, 2009. 123-129. Print.

Jones, Ken. “A Balanced School Accountability Model: An Alternative to High-Stakes Testing.”

Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues. Ed. James Wm. Noll. New York: McGraw Hill, 2009. 153-152. Print.

 Meier, Deborah, and George Harrison Wood. Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child

Left Behind Act Is Damaging Our Children and Our Schools. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. Google Books. 24 February 2011. Web.

Murray, Charles. “The Age of Educational Romanticism.” American Enterprise Institute for

Public Policy Research. 1 May 2008. Web. 28 February 2011. <http://www.aei.org/article/27692>

Uzzell, Lawrence A. “Cheat Sheets.” The American Spectator. 3 November 2005. Web. 23

February 2011. <http://spectator.org/archives/2005/11/03/cheat-sheets>

Wallis, Claudia. “No Child Left Behind: Doomed to Fail?” Time Magazine. 8 June 2008. Web. 2

            March 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article10,8599,1812758,00.html>